[2022] UGHCLD 12
The court found that the respondents had demonstrated sufficient cause for the caveat to remain in place, specifically citing the existence of a pending appeal as referenced in the notice and application for proceedings. The court held that it would be premature to vacate the caveat at this stage, as maintaining the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] UGHCLD 12
- Parties
- Applicant: Daudi Kolya; Respondent: Christine Nantongo; Respondent: Namuddu Marjorie; Respondent: Commissioner Land Registration
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Misc Cause No. 39 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- Kawesa, J
- Legal Topics
- Caveats, Removal of Caveat, Pending Appeal, Status Quo, Registration of Titles, Court Orders
- 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
Daudi Kolya
Applicant
Christine Nantongo
Respondent
Namuddu Marjorie
Respondent
Commissioner Land Registration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the caveat lodged by the respondents should be vacated from the applicant's land.
- 2 Whether the existence of a pending appeal justifies the retention of the caveat.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents had demonstrated sufficient cause for the caveat to remain in place, specifically citing the existence of a pending appeal as referenced in the notice and application for proceedings. The court held that it would be premature to vacate the caveat at this stage, as maintaining the status quo is necessary to allow the Court of Appeal to resolve the pending appeal without interference. Therefore, the application to vacate the caveat was denied, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to vacate the caveat is denied.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
# **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (LAND DIVISION) MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 0039 OF 2021**
**DAUDI KOLYA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT**
#### **VERSUS**
### **1. CHRISTINE NANTONGO**
**2. NAMUDDU MARJORIE**
**3. COMMISSIONER LAND REGISTRATION:::::::::::::::RESPONDENTS**
## **BEFORE: HON MR. JUSTICE HENRY I. KAWESA**
#### **RULING**
This is an application by way of Notice of Motion for orders that;
1. A caveat lodged by the Respondents vide Instrument No. **KCCA-U007-0074090 on land** comprised in Block 244 Plot 5198 Kisugu **be vacated.**
The application is opposed by the affidavit in reply of Marjorie Namuddu.
I have looked at the submissions. Under Section 140(1) of the Registration of Titles Act, the law requires that once a caveator files a caveat, the caveator has to show cause why the caveat should not be removed after the statutory period lapses.
In this particular case, the caveator has shown cause that there is a pending appeal as per the notice and application for proceedings referred to by the Respondents. This Court is satisfied that it is premature to vacate the caveate as it is necessary to retain the *status* quo to enable the Court of Appeal to first settle the appeal.
1 st Defendant pleaded in paragraph 3 of the written statement of defence that they would raise a preliminary objection on the competency of the suit, hence this application.
I do find merit in the application.
It is allowed.
Each party should bear its own costs.
I so order.
Henry I. Kawesa **JUDGE** 07/02/2022
......................................
## 07/02/2022:
Moses Wacha holding brief for Muwangadu for the Respondent.
Applicant in Court.
Respondent absent.
Counsel for Applicant absent.
Lydia: Court Clerk.
Moses: it is for Ruling.
Court:
Ruling read out in court in the presence of the parties present.
Sgd:
Ayo Miriam Okello
**DEPUTY REGISTRAR**
07/02/2022