[2022] UGHCLD 269
The court found that the applicants' registration on the land title was in contempt of a prior court order which directed the 1st respondent to effect corrections on the title. To prevent further dealings and ensure compliance with the court's directive, the lodging of the caveat by the 1st respondent was deemed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] UGHCLD 269
- Parties
- Applicant: Kayongo Mose & 3 Others; Respondent: Commissioner Land Registration; Respondent: Attorney General
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Misc Cause 98 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs against the applicants
- Judges
- Asiimwe, J
- Legal Topics
- Caveat Removal, Land Title Corrections, Judicial Review, Contempt of Court
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kayongo Mose & 3 Others
Applicant
Commissioner Land Registration
Respondent
Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the caveat lodged by the 1st respondent on the applicants' land title was lawful and justified.
- 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to removal of the caveat from the land title.
- 3 Whether the applicants' registration on the title was in contempt of a prior court order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants' registration on the land title was in contempt of a prior court order which directed the 1st respondent to effect corrections on the title. To prevent further dealings and ensure compliance with the court's directive, the lodging of the caveat by the 1st respondent was deemed necessary and lawful. The applicants failed to demonstrate any bad faith or legal error in the respondent's actions. The statutory duty of the Commissioner Land Registration to maintain the integrity of the land register justified the caveat, and the application for its removal lacked merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs against the applicants
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs against the applicants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
# IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
#### LAND DIVISION
### MISC. CAUSE NO. 98 OF 2022
# KAYONGO MOSE & 3 OTHERS::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
#### VERSUS
# COMMISSIONER LAND REGISTRATION & ANOR:::RESPONDENTS **BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE TADEO ASIIMWE**
### **RULING**
This application was brought under the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, Judicature Act Cap 13 (as amended by Act No.3 of 2002, Rule 6 of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rule S. I No. 11 of 2009, Rule 7A of the Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment), Rules, 2019, the Civil Procedure Rules, S. I No. $71-1$ and all enabling laws).
The applicant is seeking for a number of orders including removal of a Caveat from the Title in the names of the Applicants. The application was opposed by the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent relying on the affidavit of Bigira Johnson dated 26/10/2022 and prayed for dismissal of the Cause.
At the hearing, the Applicants were represented by Mr. Tumwesigire Evaristo while the Respondents by Sarah Banenya, Babu Hakim and Janeviv Mujuzi. The
applicant abandoned the rest of the grounds only argued one ground which relates to removal of a Caveat.
In rejoinder, the Applicants insisted that the law under which the Caveat was lodged does not fit in the circumstances of this case.
The 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent's Counsel supported the lodgment of the Caveat by the 1<sup>st</sup> Respondent. Both counsel made oral submissions.
I have considered the submissions of both Counsel and law cited. It's not in dispute that the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent has a statutory duty to prevent and correct any errors on land Titles for good reasons.
In this cause, it is clear that the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent was ordered to perform certain duties in relation to effecting some corrections on Title vide the orders arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 2310 of 2021.
Before the said action could be taken by the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent, the Applicants caused themselves to be registered on Title. In my view the said action was actually in contempt of a Court order. In order to prevent further dealing in law before implementing the Court Order, the Caveat becomes necessary in my view.
I do not find justifiable reason to fault the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent for lodging the said caveat. It was not lodged in bad faith as was argued by the Applicants' Counsel. The 1<sup>st</sup> respondent must be allowed to perform its statutory duties in keeping the register clean.
This application lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed with costs against the applicants.
$\mathsf{Z}$
$\mathbf{I}$ $\mathcal{O}$ ۲ TADEO ASÍ
$\mathsf{JUDGE}$
$2\,\allowbreak 7/1\,0/2\,0\,2\,2$
$\color{red} \P$
$\quad \ \ \, \cdots$
.