[2011] UGHC 198

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

## **CIVIL SUIT NO.1001 OF 2004**

- 1. OLIVIA NSUBUGA BANYIKIDDE - 2. STEPHEN SEBINA MUSOKE - 3. PRAFUL CHANDRA R. PATEL

### **VERSUS**

- 1. SWALA BROTHERS GROUP OF COMPANIES LIMITED - 2. THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES - KELLEN KAYONGA

### BEFORE JUSTICE REMMY KASULE

### **JUDGMENT**

The first, second and third plaintiffs sued, at first, the first and second defendants in a plaint dated 16.12.04. $\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c$

Later the second plaintiff applied and court allowed him to withdraw from $15$ the suit.

$\mathsf{S}$

$10$

$\mathsf{S}$

.20 The remaining plaintiffs then applied, and court allowed, that the third defendant, as current registered proprietor of the land property, the subject matter of the suit, be added as a party.

25 **⁵** An amended plaint dated 23.02.09, consented to by all the parties, was, with leave of the court, filed and served upon all the parties.

Each of the defendants filed a defence to the suit.

**1.**

30 The claim of the plaintiffs jointly and/or severally against the defendants is for:-

- *a) A Declaration that the property comprised in plot No.13 Mackenzie Vale, Kampala, occupied by the third defendant belongs to the plaintiffs.* - *b) An order cancelling the Certificate of Title: Leasehold Register Volume 1291 Folio 20, plot 13 Mackenzie Vale, Kampala, issued by the second Defendant in favour of the first defendant in respect of the suit property.* - *c) A declaration that the third defendant's ownership and/or title to the suit property is null and void.* - *d) General damages for trespass and inconveniences caused to the plaintiffs.*

**15**

**io**

*^e) A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants Jointly and/or severally, their agents, and servants /employees from interfering with the suit property.*

**1**

**5**

**15**

**45** The first plaintiff is a co-executor of the Will of the late Paul Kibuka Musoke having been issued with a grant of probate of the deceased's will through High Court at Kampala Administration Cause No.375 of 1997.

**50** The third plaintiff claims a half share interest in the suit property by virtue of a memorandum of understanding with the late Paul Kibuka Musoke dated 04.03.95.

**10** It is the case of the plaintiffs that, at all material time, the suit property and developments thereon comprised in plot 13 Mackenzie Vale belonged to the late Paul Kibuka Musoke together with the third defendant.

The plaintiffs contend that the defendants, unlawfully and/or fraudulently deprived and continue to deprive of the ownership, occupation and enjoyment from the plaintiffs of the said suit property.

**I**

The Defendants denied the plaintiff's claims. The first defendant asserted that the lease granted to the late Paul Kibuka Musoke in respect of the suit property expired, and thereafter, the first defendant became owner of the suit property by being granted a lease by the Controlling Authority,

**^J 80**

.65 Kampala City council. It is further contended by the first defendant that the plaintiffs are claiming different land from that the first defendant once owned.

70 **⁵** 75 The second defendant too, put up the same defence of expiry of the lease granted to Paul Kibuka Musoke. Second defendant also contended that the repossession certificate issued to late Paul Kibuka Musoke in respect of the suit land was in error as the said Kibuka Musoke was not a departed Asian to repossess the suit property. Following allocation of land by Kampala City Council, the second defendant properly caused registration of the first defendant as leaseholder of the suit property without any fraud or wrong on the part of the second defendant.

io

**15**

The third defendant pleaded by way of defence that she is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of any fraud or irregularity and that she has been in occupation and use of the suit property from the time she acquired the same on 20.06.08 until when she was served with the court summons of this suit.

**80**

**I**

**85** The following facts were agreed as between the plaintiffs and the first and second defendants at scheduling. The third defendant had as yet not become a party to the suit.

**1£1**

*1. That the suit property is situate on plot 13 Mackenzie Vale; Kampala.*

**5**

io

**15**

**20**

- 90 *2. That on 01.12.83, a lease was granted by Kampala City Council and on 19.01.84 under Instrument No.218063, the said lease was registered into the names of Swala Group of Companies and on 24.08.84 the same was registered in the names of the first defendant.* - 95 *3. That upon processing the land title for the land comprised in LRV 1291 Folio 20, the first defendant retained possession of the suit property until it was transferred to another person sometime in 2008.* - *4. That the late Paul Kibuka Musoke acquired a repossession certificate in respect of the land comprised in LRV 783 Folio 8 plot No.13 Mackenzie vale, Kampala City, in 1995, which he registered on the land title comprised in LRV 783 Folio 8 plot No.13, Mackenzie vale, Kampala City, on 05.10.95 under Instrument No.274386.*

**I**

<05 *5. That the second defendant, at all times, issued the land titles comprised in LRV 783 Folio 8 and LRV 1291 Folio 20, all for the land situate on plot 13 Mackenzie vale, Kampala, and registered all the above transactions on the said titles.*

The parties framed the following issues for determination by the court:-

*1. Whether the plaintiffs are the rightful owners of the suit property or not*

- *first defendant acquired the suit property 2. Whether the fraudulently.* - *3. Whether the second defendant unlawfully and fraudulently issued the Certificate of Title comprised in LRV 1291 Folio 20 in respect of the suit property to the first defendant.*

*4. Whether the 3rd defendant is a bonafide purchaser for value.*

#### *5. Remedies available.*

.20 The plaintiff testified for .plaintiffs as PW1. Plaintiffs called no other witnesses. Mr. Chris Akena, testified as DW1, as witness of first defendant, DW2, Kakerewe Yusuf, Registrar of Titles, Land Registration, Ministry of Lands and Housing, testified for second defendant, while the third defendant testified in person as DW3.

125 The first issue is whether the plaintiffs are the rightful owners of the suit property or not.

130 On 14.06.69, the late Paul Kibuka Musoke became registered proprietor of the suit property, then comprised in Leasehold Register Volume 722 Folio ¹ plot 13 Mackenzie Vale, measuring 0.223 hectares. He leased the property from City Council of Kampala for a term of two (2) years from 01.08.68, extendable to ninety nine (99) years on fulfilling the development covenant of construction of a building for residential purposes. After the expiry of the initial period of two (2) years, without the development having been carried

**5**

-135 out, this lease was extended for another two years up to 31.12.72; under LRV 783 Folio 8.

**I**

**I** ¹⁴⁵

**I**

**J**

**1**

**1**

**1**

**1**

**1**

**¹** ¹⁵⁵

140 **5** The late Paul Kibuuka Musoke, according to his letter to the Town Clerk, City council of Kampala, dated 30.10.96 and tendered in evidence as exhibit P6, acquired a loan in April, 1972, from one Hussein Habib and used the same to construct a modern residential house on the land. Soon thereafter he was forced to flee the country for the safety of his life. At this time the country was being governed by the Military regime of Idi Amin. It is also at this time that this regime expelled Asians from Uganda.

**10** On 11.09.95, the Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, Uganda Government, issued to Paul Kibuka Musoke, a certificate authorizing repossession of the suit property: plot No. 13 Mackenzie vale, Kampala, LRV 783 Folio 8.

Armed with the Certificate of Repossession, the late Kibuuka Musoke wrote exhibit P6 requesting that his lease to the property be extended to the full term of 97 years by the City council of Kampala.

**15**

In exhibit P6, Mr. Paul Kibuka Musoke, stated that the suit property had been expropriated by the government, but gave no specifics in which ways the expropriation had taken place. He did not state, and no evidence was

adduced to court, as to who occupied and took over the suit property at the time he left Uganda and before the City Council of Kampala started to deal with the property as the Controlling Authority.

The third plaintiff, who claims to own a half share in the suit property, did not also in his testimony to court explain in which way the Government of Uganda had expropriated the suit property.

It is a fact that by 1995, the period of lease granted to Paul Kibuka Musoke in respect of the suit property had long expired and the same had not been renewed. The only way the lease to late Paul Kibuka Musoke could continue to be effective, its expiry notwithstanding, is if the suit property fell in the category of expropriated properties in terms of the Expropriated Properties Act, cap.87, Laws of Uganda, 2000 Edition.

175 **15** Section 2 of this Act provides that expropriated properties are those properties that were vested in the Government and transferred to the Departed Asians' Property Custodian Board under the Assets of Departed Asians Act, those acquired by the Government under the properties and Business (Acquisition) Decree, 1973; and those in any other way appropriated or taken over by the military regime, excepting those affected by the repealed National Trust Decree, 1971.

**5**

**I**

**I**

**I**

**1**

**]**

**1**

An expropriate property under any of the above categories, remained vested in the Government and was to be managed by the Ministry responsible for finance.

185 ¹90 Any purchase, transfers and grants, or any dealings of whatever kind in such properties that had taken place prior to the Act coming into force, that is 21.02.83, were all nullified. Any leases concerning the said property which had expired or been terminated were deemed to have continued and to continue in force until the property had been dealt with in accordance with the Act.

**I**

**I**

**]**

**]**

**J**

**2**

**3**

**5**

**J 10** The burden is on the plaintiffs to prove that the suit property of late Paul Kibuka Musoke had been expropriated by the Military Regime Government and as such the lease to Paul Kibuka Musoke in respect of the property continued until the property had been dealt with in accordance with the Expropriated Properties Act.

**15 20** The evidence for the first and second defendants is to the effect that the suit property was never expropriated by the military regime. The lease granted to late Paul Kibuka Musoke expired and the property reverted to City Council of Kampala, the then controlling authority. The property was then leased to Yusuf Birali for two (2) years commencing 01.05.77; which period expired on 30.04.79 without any application for renewal. 205 210 On 01.11.83 the first defendant successfully applied to lease the suit property, and after complying with all terms and conditions of the lease, a full lease was extended in favour of the first defendant to full term of ninety nine (99) years. Later the first defendant sold the property to some other third party, who too passed over the property to others, ultimately ending up with the third defendant as the current registered proprietor thereof.

**5**

**10**

**15**

According to the first and second defendants, any variations with the acreage of the suit property between what was given to them and what was originally given to late Paul Kibuka Musoke, is the responsibility of the City council of Kampala and not theirs. The same cannot be taken as fraud on their part to the prejudice of the plaintiffs.

**I**

**3**

**1**

²²⁵ **¹**

**2**

²¹⁵ **I**

The Supreme court has held that section 2(1 )(c) of the Expropriated Properties Act covers properties in whatever manner appropriated or taken over by the Military Regime: See *The Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Custodian Board: [1994] KALR 323 at p.330.*

This court has carefully evaluated the evidence adduced both by the plaintiffs and the defendants.

**]** ¹⁰

230 235 The evidence of PW1 is that on 11.09.95 the late Paul Kibuka Musoke was issued by the Minister of Finance with the Certificate Authorizing Repossession. It is significant to note that the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board sent this certificate to "occupants" without specifying who exactly had expropriated the property for and on behalf of the Military Regime. PW1 offered no explanation, let alone any evidence, as to who had expropriated the property. Yet as early as 1999, before the filing of the suit, the plaintiffs had received the objection of the first defendant's lawyers and also communication of the second defendant that the Repossession Certificate had been issued in error; and that the first defendant had lawfully got title to the suit land from the lawful controlling authority, the City Council of Kampala.

240 The plaintiffs did not make the City Council of Kampala a party to this suit. Accordingly they sought no claim for damages or other reliefs against the City Council of Kampala with regard to the suit property.

245 They did not also adduce evidence to the effect that the City Council of Kampala, had no powers to grant a lease to Yusuf Birali, and then later to the first defendant in respect of the suit property. The plaintiffs also adduced no evidence, and made no submission, to the effect that, in dealing with the suit property, the way it was done, the City Council of Kampala expropriated the suit property for and on behalf of the Military Regime.

**I**

**I**

**I**

**I**

**I**

**I**

**I**

**I**

**I**

**I**

**I**

**I**

**11**

io

**5**

**15**

This court has noted that S.15(1) of the Expropriated Properties Act provides that a person aggrieved by any decision made by the Minister under the Act may within a period of thirty days from the date of the communication of the decision to such a person, appeal to the High Court against such decision.

$\mathsf{S}$

$20$

l

Ī

I.

I

$\mathcal{L}$

ı

Z

It is submitted for the plaintiffs that since the first defendant did not appeal against the Minister's issuance of the Certificate of Repossession of the suit property to the late Paul Kibuka Musoke, the first defendant is estopped from challenging the issuance of the said certificate in this suit.

To support the above submission, plaintiffs' counsel relied on the statement $10$ of court made in the case of High Court (at Kampala) Civil Suit No.603 of 1997 KANJI KALIDAS RAJA & OTHERS VS MATAYO KYALIGONZA & OTHERS, unreported.

In that case the trial Judge, the then Principal Judge, Justice J. H. NTABGOBA, stated:

"I would say that if the suit property was not subject to the provisions 270 of the Expropriated Properties Act, 1982, the Minister would not have granted a Repossession Certificate therefore. And if the Defendants had thought that the Minister was wrong in granting the

*Repossession Certificate, they should have appealed to the High Court against his decision".*

**I**

**I**

**I**

**5 10** With due respect, ^I am unable to agree with plaintiffs' counsel's above submission. First, the first defendant, was never heard, by the Minister before the Repossession Certificate was issued on 11.09.05; and was never specifically informed of the decision of the Minister to issue the Repossession Certificate; as the same and decision of the Minister to do so was just communicated to *"occupants"* on 29.09.95 by the Departed Asians' Property Custodian Board. No effort was made to address the Repossession Certificate and decision of the Minister to the first defendant as registered proprietor of the property. This failure was an inhibition to the first defendant to appeal the Minister's decision of 15.09.95. 280

**15** Second, there is nothing in the Expropriated Properties Act to bar this court from resolving whether or not, on the evidence adduced before court, the Repossession Certificate was properly issued to the late Paul Kibuka Musoke in respect of the suit property as regards the plaintiffs, representing the interests of late Paul Kibuka Musoke in the suit property and the first defendant as the registered proprietor of the suit property at the material time. **^I 290**

295 **20** Third, the statement quoted above, made in the Kanji Kalidas Raja & Others vs Matayo Kyaligonza & Others case, should be restricted to the facts of that case. This is so because in that case, there was no oral or other evidence given by witnesses to challenge the issuance of the 13

300 repossession Certificate. The parties in that case, through their respective counsel, agreed to have the case resolved by court on the basis of documentary evidence only, the Repossession Certificate inclusive, that had been submitted to court. Thus there was no evidence adduced from witnesses to show that the Repossession certificate was wrongly issued.

305 310 In this case, before this court, there is evidence of DW1 and DW2 of the expiry of the lease granted to late Paul Kibuka Musoke in the suit property, and how the controlling authority dealt with the suit property by allocating it to the first defendant. This evidence shows the suit property was not expropriated. The plaintiffs, other than producing the Repossession Certificate, have not controverted this evidence. This court cannot keep a blind eye to the defendants' evidence just because the plaintiffs are in possession of a certificate of Repossession. The facts and circumstances in this case are therefore different from the facts and circumstances in the Kanji Kalidas case (supra).

**I**

**3**

**3**

**3**

**]**

**3**

**3**

*1*

**J**

**1**

315 **1 ²⁰** 320 Therefore this court is unable to conclude that just because the late Paul Kibuka Musoke was granted a Repossession certificate of the suit property, this per se, is conclusive that the suit property had been expropriated. The evidence that the first defendant got the property by applying for the same from the City Council of Kampala, when Paul Kibuka Musoke's lease had long expired was not controverted by the plaintiffs. No evidence was adduced by plaintiffs that the suit property had been allocated to any Ministry, Department or individual by the Military Regime, or that the same had been in some other way been expropriated. As already pointed out,

**J** ¹⁴

**15**

**10**

the plaintiffs saw no cause to lodge any claim against the City Council of Kampala about the way the Council dealt with the suit property.

**I**

**I**

**a**

**h**

**3**

**3**

**a**

**J**

**J**

**a**

**i**

**1** ³⁴⁵

This court therefore answers the first issue that the plaintiffs are not the lawful owners of the suit land. The property was lawfully acquired by the first defendant from the City Council of Kampala, the Controlling Authority, after Paul Kibuka Musoke's lease had expired and there were no steps taken by him or on his behalf to extend the same.

The second issue is whether the first defendant acquired the suit property fraudulently.

**] 10** The evidence adduced is that the Controlling Authority: City council of Kampala, granted the lease to the first defendant after due compliance with all the terms and conditions set. As already pointed out, the plaintiffs have not shown the City Council of Kampala to have expropriated the suit property from Paul Kibuka Musoke for and on behalf of the Military Regime.

**1 ¹⁵** Apparently the plaintiffs have no complaints against the City Council of Kampala as to how it dealt with the suit property. Otherwise plaintiffs would have made the Council a party to these proceedings.

To the extent that the interest of the late Paul Kibuka Musoke in the suit property had long ceased with the expiry of the lease to him, and that the

suit property was not an expropriated one, the plaintiffs have proved no fraud to defeat the title the first defendant had in the suit property.

350 Fraud must be strictly proved and the plaintiffs have the burden to show that the defendants dishonestly dealt with the suit land at the time of acquiring the title: See SIPIYA KYAMULESIRE VS JUSTUS BIKANCULIKA: [1993] 1 v KALR 32; and also KAMPALA BOTTLERS LIMITED VS DAMANICO (U) Limited SCCA NO.22 of 1992.

The Law requires a higher burden of proof in cases of fraud. The burden

is higher than that of a balance of probabilities, required in a normal civil action, but not as high as beyond reasonable doubt required in a criminal $10$ trial: See: RONALD KAYARA V HASSAN ALI AHMED: SSCA NO.1 OF *1990.* ¹

Given the facts and the position of the law as to fraud, court finds that the differences in acreage relating to the suit land; the changes in the numbers of volumes and folios and the change in names on the certificate of title of the suit property from SWALA GROUP of COMPANIES (LTD) to SWALA BROTHERS GROUP OF Companies Ltd, were mere irregularities in the whole process of acquiring title to the suit property. Court is unable to find them to be acts of fraud on the part of the first and second defendants.

I

I

Į

$\frac{1}{2}$

I

$\mathcal{L}^{\text{max}}$

$15$

$\overline{5}$

370 Court finds on the second issue that the first defendant lawfully acquired the suit property without any fraud on his part.

**¹** ³⁷⁵ **⁵** The third issue is whether the second defendant unlawfully and fraudulently issued the certificate of title comprised in LRV 1291 Folio 20 in respect of the suit property to the first defendant.

> DW2, the Registrar of Titles, testified that, at the time the certificate of title was issued to the first defendant, Paul Kibuka Musoke's lease had long expired. The plaintiffs have also not proved that the suit property was expropriated property at the material time. The Controlling Authority, City Council of Kampala, authorized the first defendant to be issued with a Certificate of Title.

**•?**

**3**

**3**

**1**

**2**

**2**

**3**

**3**

**1**

**3** ³⁹⁰

**3 ¹⁵** Court accepts the submission made on behalf of the plaintiffs that the caveat lodged on the suit property and registered as Instrument No.392195 on 13.02.08 at 2.45p.m was wrongly removed by being *"rejected"* because of *"interest expired".*

> The caveat according to the supporting affidavit of the third plaintiff, was based on the fact that this suit had been lodged in this court to recover the suit land from the first and second defendants. As such, the plaintiffs were forbidding the registration of any change in the proprietorship or any other

> > 17

dealings in the suit land until after the final disposal of the suit or any other order of the court.

$\mathbf{1}$

$\mathbf{1}$

This caveat was, in the considered view of this court, wrongly drawn. The caveat itself is drawn as referring to property comprised in Leasehold Register Volume 1291 Folio 20 plot No.10 Mackenzie vale road, Kampala. This was not the suit property. It is in the affidavit accompanying the caveat that the proper plot 13 of the suit property is stated. If there was any proper reason for rejecting the caveat, by the second defendant, it was this one of wrongly stating the particulars of the plot of the suit property: whether plot 10 or plot 13.

$\mathsf{S}$

$10$

$15$

$20$

The second defendant however rejected the caveat basing on another reason as already stated. The removal of the caveat was done without any notification and affording an opportunity to the caveator to be heard. The second defendant thus acted as registrar of titles and judge in the same cause.

$-10$

The second defendant, as Registrar, having taken the decision to accept and register the caveat, its mis-description of the particulars of the suit property notwithstanding, was obliged to act in compliance with sections 139, 140 and 141 of the Registration of Titles Act. Therefore the caveat ought not to have been removed without the consent of the caveator or without giving the caveator notice: See JACKSON MUSOKE KIKAYIRA *H. C. C. S No.* VS *ROSEMARY NALUBEGA & YAHAYA WALUSIMBI. 119 of 1999.*

420 This court has however already held that the interest in the suit property of the late Paul Kibuka Musoke had long expired in the suit property and that the said property was not expropriated property. It follows therefore that the removal of the caveat by the second defendant, wrongful as it was, did not in any way cause any prejudice to the plaintiffs.

**5**

**10**

# 425

**I**

**3**

**Jc**

**1**

**3**

**3**

**3**

**3**

**3**

**3**

**3**

**3**

**1**

Court finds, in answer to the third issue, that the second defendant did not unlawfully and fraudulently issue to the first defendant the certificate of title comprised in LRV 1291 Folio 20 in respect of the suit property.

**3** ⁴³⁰ The fourth issue is whether the third defendant is a bonafide purchaser for value.

**¹⁵** 435 Court notes that no particulars of fraud were pleaded by the plaintiffs as having been committed by the third defendant. This is a serious omission on the part of the plaintiffs.

It has already been found by this court that the suit property, on the basis of the evidence before the court, was not expropriated property in terms of the Expropriated Properties Act. The Act by its section 2(2)(a) and (b) did not 19

440 recognize the concept of a bonafide purchaser for value without notice in cases of expropriated properties.

445 **⁵** It follows therefore, that since the suit property has been held not to be expropriated property, the third defendant's title to the suit property can only be challenged by proving fraud on her part. As already pointed out no fraud was pleaded against the third defendant.

This court has also found that the late Paul Kibuka Musoke's interest in the suit property got extinguished when the lease he held in the property expired and the City Council of Kampala as the controlling authority dealt with the property the way it deemed fit in accordance with the law. ¹ 450

**11**

**10**

**15**

**20**

[. 455 460 The plaintiffs therefore, in the circumstances, have not shown how the third defendant's acquiring title to the suit property affected the interests of the late Paul Kibuka Musoke in the suit property which interests got extinguished on the expiry of the lease to him. If the plaintiffs had any dissatisfaction as to the granting of another lease to the first defendant as regards the suit property, then the plaintiffs ought to have moved against the City Council of Kampala, the controlling authority of the suit property. The plaintiffs not only did they fail to move against the City Council of Kampala, but they also adduced no evidence as to what is the present monetary value of the interest they say, Paul Kibuka Musoke had in the suit property.

465 **I** ⁴⁷⁰ In the course of hearing of the case, it transpired that the third defendant had, on registering the transfer of the suit property, paid stamp duty calculated on the basis of Shs.900,000,000/= as the purchase price instead of United States Dollars 900,000; which was the correct amount as per the agreement of purchase, Exhibit D16. Court did not receive evidence as to what was the correct exchange rate of the Uganda Shilling to the dollar at that time: 20.06.08; or what should have been the correct amount in Uganda shillings upon which the stamp duty should have been calculated.

**1**

**1 (**

**1**

**3**

**I**

**I**

**I**

**3**

J ⁴⁸⁵

**2**

**5**

**2**

**1**

**5**

475 io **¹⁵** ⁴⁸⁰ **¹** The fact however, is that some stamp duty was paid by the third defendant, but not based on the correct purchase price. This way there might have been a possible under payment of stamp duty as the purchase price of United States Dollars 900,000 is more than Ug. Shs.900,000,000/=, This court having detected this aspect in the course of the hearing of the case cannot just overlook the matter. The court must order remedial action under its inherent jurisdiction.

> The third defendant had a duty to disclose to the second defendant and the Revenue Authority the correct purchase price amount for the purpose of assessing the stamp duty/tax payable, and in failing to do so she acted wrongly contrary to section 23 of the Stamps Act, cap.342.

> > 21

It is therefore ordered that the second defendant and the Uganda Revenue Authority recover, pursuant to section 55 of the Stamps Act, from the third defendant whatever amount of stamp duty/tax, if any, including penalties, that was not paid by the third defendant on the basis of the purchase price of the suit property at US \$ 900,000 (nine hundred thousand) as at 20.06.08

For the reasons already stated, court holds that the nonpayment, if any, of 495 the stamp duty in full, by the third defendant, has no bearing at all to the plaintiffs' case since they have been held to have no interest in the suit For the same reasons, court finds it inconsequential and property. $10$ irrelevant to the plaintiffs, whether or not stamp duty was paid in respect of the sale agreement of 20.06.08 between Annie Ninkijuka and the third 500 defendant, and that Mr. Samuel Kiriaghe, the counsel for the third defendant acted as witness for the vendor Annie Ninkijuka on the said sale 15 agreement.

As to remedies, the plaintiffs have failed to prove the case against the defendants and as such their case has to be dismissed.

The third defendant is to pay to the Uganda Revenue Authority any stamp duty/tax, if any, penalties inclusive, that remained outstanding on the purchase price of the suit property of United States Dollars 900,000 (nine hundred thousand), instead of the amount stated on the transfer of Uganda 5

515 **⁵** Shillings 900,000,000/= (nine hundred million) as at 20.06.08. The second defendant and Uganda Revenue Authority are to recover, whatever amount is due from the third defendant pursuant to section 55 of the Stamps Act. For this purpose, a copy of this judgment is to be forwarded by the Registrar, High Court, Kampala, to the Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority, and to the Registrar of Titles, Ministry of Lands, for appropriate action of recovery of stamp duty/tax from and against the third defendant.

**I** In conclusion the plaintiffs' suit against the defendants stands dismissed. (.20

**I**

**I**

**3**

**3**

**3**

**3**

**3530**

**3**

**3**

**1**

**3 ¹⁰** The third defendant is ordered to pay any outstanding stamp duty/tax, if any, penalties inclusive as ordered above.

**3** ⁵²⁵ The first and second defendants are awarded the costs of the dismissed suit as against the plaintiffs.

> No costs are awarded to the third defendant by reason of her having failed to declare to the appropriate authorities the correct amount she paid for the suit property for purposes of calculating the proper amount of stamp duty/tax payable. She had no clean hands before court; and as such she is not awarded costs of the suit.

**15**

**3** ²³

**3 ² ⁰ ⁰**


# **JUDGE**

$\mathcal{E}$

12.01.2011

$\overline{24}$

$201\\$

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA **CIVIL SUIT NO. 1001 OF 2004**

#### 1. OLIVIA NSUBUGA BANYIKIDDE

- Mayocates & Solicitors STEPHEN SEBINA – MUSOKE ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIEKS - 3. PRAFULCHANDRA R. PATEL

### **VERSUS**

- 1. SWALA BROTHERS GROUP OF COMPANIES LTD. - 2. THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES ::::::::::::::::::::::: DEFEND - 3. KELLEN KAYONGA

$\mathbb{C}$

#### DECREE

This matter coming up for final disposal this 28^th day of March 2011 before the Hon. Mr. Justice Remmy Kasule and the judgment having been delivered by His Worship John Keitirima, Deputy Registrar in the presence of Mr. Paul Sebunya, Counsel for the 1^st Plaintiff, Mr. Sebanja Abubaker, Counsel for the 3^rd Plaintiff, Mr. Samuel Kiriaghe, Counsel for the 1^st Defendant and Mr. Ben Wagabaza. Counsel for the $3^rd$ Defendant:

# IT IS HEREBY DECREED as follows:

- 1. The Plaintiffs' suit be and is hereby dismissed. - 2. The third Defendant is ordered to pay any outstanding stamp duty/tax, if any, penalties inclusive pursuant to section 55 of the Stamps Act. - 3. The first and second Defendants are awarded the costs of the dismissed suit as against the Plaintiffs. - 4. No costs are awarded to the third Defendant.

Extracted by Consent: MATSIKO & CO. ADVOCATES BARENZI & CO. ADVOCATES COUNSEL FOR THE 1^ST DEFENDANT COUNSEL FOR THE 1^ST PLAINTIFF WAGABAZA C. K. MDVOCATES REGISTRAR OF TITLES COUNSEL FOR THE 3^RD DEFENDANT 2^ND DEFENDANT SEBANJA-MALENDE & CO. ADVOCATES<br>COUNSEL FOR THE 3^RD PLAINTIFF υL. 202

$10$

GIVEN under my hand and seal of this Honourable Court this $28^th$ day of March 2011.

$\ddot{\phantom{0}}$

$\mathcal{L}_2$

$\frac{1}{2}$

$\overline{a}$

$\overline{a}$

$\epsilon$

$2^mg$ DEPUTY REGISTRAR<br>28/03/2011