[2017] UGHCLD 253

[2017] UGHCLD 253

The court held that although the applicants satisfied the statutory requirements under Section 177 of the Registration of Title Act for cancellation of the respondent's name from the certificate of title, the existence of a pending appeal by the respondent justified the exercise of judicial discretion to withhold...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] UGHCLD 253
Parties
Applicant: Nantongo Harriet; Applicant: Nagawa Annet; Applicant: Nakabugo Miria; Respondent: Namuyiga Rose
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Misc Application No. 0064 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Cancellation of Title
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
Kawesa, J
Legal Topics
Cancellation of Title, Registration of Titles, Appeals and Stay, Judicial Discretion
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Cancellation of Title Registration of Titles Appeals and Stay Judicial Discretion

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nantongo Harriet

Applicant

Nagawa Annet

Applicant

Nakabugo Miria

Applicant

Namuyiga Rose

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Cancellation of Title

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an order for cancellation of the respondent's name from the certificate of title under Section 177 of the Registration of Title Act.
  2. 2 Whether the existence of a pending appeal bars the granting of an order for cancellation of title.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although the applicants satisfied the statutory requirements under Section 177 of the Registration of Title Act for cancellation of the respondent's name from the certificate of title, the existence of a pending appeal by the respondent justified the exercise of judicial discretion to withhold the order. The court reasoned that the law does not make the existence of an appeal a bar to such proceedings, but the discretionary language of the statute ('may') allows the court to consider the interests of substantive justice. Given that the respondent had lodged a memorandum of appeal, the court found it appropriate to allow the appeal process to proceed without prejudicing...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for cancellation of the respondent's name from the certificate of title is rejected.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.