[2023] UGHC 365

## **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT MASAKA**

# **MISC CAUSE NO. 10 OF 2021**

**SEKALO SAAD (One of the Administrators of the estate of the Late Haji Abdulnoor Ssekayiba) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT**

## **VERSUS**

## **ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENTS**

*Before; Hon Justice Victoria Nakintu Nkwanga Katamba*

# **RULING**.

# **BACKGROUND**

The Applicant instituted this suit against the Respondent for an order lifting the caveat lodged on MSK Volume 389 Folio 6, Plot No. 1 land at Masaka Elgin road measuring 0.0890 Hectares. According to the search report attached to the Applicant's affidavit in support, the land is registered in six owners to wit;

- 1. Mugerwa Sulaiman Kuguba 40% share - 2. Nsubuga Elias 20% shares - 3. Sekayiba Abdul, the alleged Applicant's benefactor 10% share - 4. Sentongo Adam- 10% shares - 5. Lukwago 13% shares - 6. Nabakooza Rose 7% shares.

The Applicant contends that the Respondent lodged the caveat without any justifiable cause desires this court to remove the said caveat of the Respondent lodged as a beneficiary to give way to completion of distribution of his benefactor's estate.

#### **Representation**

- **1. The Applicant is represented by M/s Najuma, Nakalule & Co. Advocates** - **2. The Respondent did not enter appearance.**


#### **APPLICANT'S SUBMISSIONS**

The applicant submits that he filed this Application under **S.140 of the Registration of Titles Act** for orders that the caveat lodged on Land comprised in Masaka Volume msk 389, folio 6 land at Masaka Elgin road Plot 1 by the Respondent be vacated by the Respondent and costs of the Application.

He cited *S. 140 of the Registration of Titles Act* which provides that a proprietor may if he or she thinks fit summon the caveator to attend court and show cause why the caveat should not be removed.

He also quoted Section 140(2) which provides that except for a beneficiary caveat, a caveat lodged under section 140 lapses upon expiration of 60 days from the date of a notice being given to the caveator of an Application to vacate a caveat*. See Isaya Katende v Musa kaliri & Anor. (1975) H. C. B 241.*

The Applicant maintains he is one of the Administrators of the Estate of the Late Abdulnoor Ssekayiba who owns a 10% shareholding as Tenant in common in unequal shares with others on the described Land. Refer to paragraph 2 of the Affidavit in support and Annexture 'A' on the Affidavit in Support.

That the Respondent lodged a caveat in the capacity of a beneficiary whilst it is not as Letters of Administration of the said Estate were already granted to other Administrators including the Applicant.

That the Applicant has engaged the Respondent to have the caveat vacated in vain.

That the said Caveat has hindered many transactions on the said Land desired to be executed by the Applicant.

In conclusion the Applicant prayed that the Caveat lodged on Land comprised in Masaka Volume msk 389, folio 6 land at Masaka Elgin road Plot 1 by the Respondent be vacated by the Respondent and costs of the Application be awarded to him.

# *DETERMINATION OF THE SUIT.*

To begin with, the Respondent did not file an affidavit in reply despite service. I have seen an affidavit of service deponed and filed by a one Kaluba Enock on 7th October 2021. I also directed the Respondents to serve the Respondent again but I have not seen proof of service in the subsequent hearings. Nevertheless, I will proceed to determine the Application on its merits.

I have carefully considered the pleadings, the evidence and the submissions of the Applicant and below are my findings.

# The issue to be resolved is one; *Whether the Respondent's caveat on the suit land should be lifted?*

The purpose of lodging caveats on land is to protect the interest of a party that claims an interest in the land. The search report availed to this court dated 11th September 2020 demonstrates that the land is owned by several (6) separate individuals as tenants in common.

The interest/holding of the individual owners is severable and the Applicant's benefactor owns only a paltry 10%.

The Applicant has neither demonstrated to this court how he intends to preserve the other owner's owners 90% stake in the property nor that the other owners are agreeable to the lifting of the caveats to pave for way for his desirable transactions.

Further, the Applicant also did not find it necessary to annex a copy of his Letters of Administration to prove to this court that he is indeed a joint administrator with others as alleged, in the estate of the Late Haji Abdulnoor Ssekayiba.

This court was left in doubt as to whether the Applicant is a joint administrator in the estate of the Late Haji Abdulnoor Ssekayiba and as to the propriety of the intention to remove the caveats. The Administrator General's lodgment of caveat on this small but most likely commercial urban property indicates that some of the tenants in common are now deceased and their estates may not yet have even been brought under administration.

*S. 22 of the Administrator General's Act requires intending litigants against the Respondent to apply to him in writing one month prior to institution of suits and to furnish proof of this in their subsequent suits.*

The Applicant has not availed any demand for removal of caveat or request for an explanation of lodgment of the same in writing to the Respondent as envisaged in S.22 of the Administrator General's Act above, prior to institution of this suit.


Owing to the above reasons, this court finds no merit in the Application and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

I so order.

Dated and delivered electronically at Masaka this 10th day of May 2023.

*\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_*

*Victoria Nakintu Nkwanga Katamba*

*Judge.*