HC: Land Division (Uganda)

The Land Division is a Division created at the High Court Head office at Kampala.

The Division is charged with the following functions:Responsibility of supervising the work of Land Tribunals, the adjudication of all land related dispute fall under this Division. The land Division is established with three judges with a separate registry for the Division .There is a Registrar for the Land Division who doubles as the Registrar of the Land Tribunals. A desk office was also established under the office of the Registrar to handle the activities of the District Land Tribunals.

 

Physical address
Twed Towers, along Kafu Road, Nakasero, Kampala.
7 judgments
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
7 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
July 2014
Mis-evaluation of documentary and witness evidence and failure to visit locus rendered the trial a miscarriage of justice; sale to the appellant proved.
Land law – proof of sale – documentary evidence and corroborating witnesses; Evidence Act ss. 60, 61, 69, 72(2) – thumbprint and party’s right to be heard; Appellate review – misdirection and failure to evaluate evidence; Civil procedure – failure to visit locus in land disputes can be fatal and occasion a miscarriage of justice.
24 July 2014
Application to remove long-standing caveat dismissed for lack of statutory notice and wrong defendant sued.
* Registration of Titles Act – Caveat – lapse under s.149 requires service of statutory notice and inaction; no automatic expiry. * Succession law – Customary heir not necessarily legal representative or sole beneficial owner; proper party must be appointed before suit. * Procedure – appoint legal representative of deceased caveator and serve notice to show cause prior to seeking removal of caveat. * Property law – Caveat is an encumbrance on the registry certificate and does not automatically bar issuance of a duplicate certificate of title.
21 July 2014
Judicial review dismissed where statutory appeal under Land Act s.91 was available and not exhausted.
Land law — Judicial review v. statutory appeal — Registration of Titles Act s.165 procedural only — Land Act s.91(1) and s.91(10) confer remedy by appeal — exhaustion of alternative remedies required before review — inherent jurisdiction discretionary.
14 July 2014
A company was held in contempt for dealing with land during an injunction; directors not proven individually liable; fine and costs ordered.
Land law – Interim injunction – Contempt of court – Corporate respondent’s subdivision and transfer during injunction – Liability of company distinct from directors – lifting the corporate veil – civil contempt remedies (committal, sequestration, fine) – procedural irregularities not fatal where no prejudice – inherent/common law powers of the High Court.
11 July 2014
Claim against sixth defendant dismissed for failure to plead material facts and requisite particulars of alleged fraud.
Succession law – administrator’s rights to estate property; Civil Procedure – plaint must disclose cause of action (Order 7 r11; Auto Garage v Motokov); Pleading – mandatory particulars of fraud (Order 6 r3 CPR); Evidential attachments – necessity of will, death certificate and title copies to establish a prima facie case.
9 July 2014
A mutual mistake about acreage did not void the sale; court ordered equitable partition and survey, with title transfer steps.
* Land law – sale of land – validity of written sale agreement – objection under Illiterates Protection Act raised late and rejected as afterthought. * Contract law – common mistake as to acreage – identity of land unaffected; contract not void ab initio. * Equitable remedies – specific performance impractical; court orders equitable division, survey and transfer steps. * Remedies – demarcation by independent surveyor, delivery of title/transfer forms, costs borne by each party.
8 July 2014
Applicant failed to establish a prima facie case, required pleadings of fraud, or balance of convenience for an interim injunction.
* Civil procedure – interim injunction – preservation of status quo – American Cyanamid principles (prima facie case, irreparable harm, balance of convenience). * Land law – conflicting descriptions of disputed land in plaint and interlocutory application – impact on interlocutory relief. * Relief of cancellation under Section 176 RTA – requirement to plead and prove fraud. * Evidential burden – applicant must prove case on balance of probabilities despite respondent’s silence.
7 July 2014