Court name
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Judgment date
25 March 2013

Jotena (U) Ltd v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause-2011/43) [2013] UGHCLD 26 (25 March 2013);

Cite this case
[2013] UGHCLD 26

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

[LAND DIVISION]

 

MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 43 OF 2011

 

         

JOTENA (U) LTD                                          :::::::::::                APPLICANT

 

VERSUS

 

COMMISSIONER LAND REGISTRATION ::::::::::                        RESPONDENT

 

 

RULING BY HON. MR. JUSTICE JOSEPH MURANGIRA

 

The applicant through his lawyers M/s Kyazze & Co. Advocates brought this application against the respondent under Section 36 of the Judicature Act, Cap. 13, Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 71; Rules 3, 6, and 7 of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009, S.I no.11 of 2009, Order 52 rules 1  and 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules  and Section 182 of the Registration  of Titles Act, Cap. 230. This application is supported by the affidavit that was sworn by Edith Nasuuna, the Director of the applicant.

 

The respondent in not represented and she never filed any affidavit in reply to this application and as a result, this application proceeded exparte.

 

This application is seeking the following orders; that:-

  1. That a writ of mandamus doth issue compelling the respondent to register the suit properties comprised in LRV 453 Folio 22 also known as plot 90 William Street, Kyadondo Block 38 plot 220, Wandegeya and Kibuga Block 12 plot 197 Kampala in the applicant’s name.

 

  1. That the respondent pays costs of this application.

 

The applicant in paragraph 2 of the affidavit in support of this application deponed by Edith Nasuuna stated:

“that this Honourable Court issued a decree dated 18th March 2011, directing the respondent to register property comprised in LRV 453 Folio 22, Kyadondo Block 38 plot 220 Wandegeya and Kibuga Block 12 plot 197 Kampala in the applicant’s name”.

 

The decree to be executed is reproduced herebelow:-

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

[LAND DIVISION]

 

CIVIL SUIT NO. 48 OF 2011

 

   

JOTENA (U) LTD                  :::::::::::             PLAINTIFF

 

VERSUS

 

COMMISSIONER LAND REGISTRATION ::::::   DEFENDANT

 

DECREE

This suit coming for final disposal this ……. Day of……. 2011 before His Worship A. G.Opifeni Registrar High Court of Uganda land Division in the presence of Counsel for the plaintiff:

 

It is hereby ordered and decreed that judgment be and is hereby entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for;

  1. A declaration that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit properties comprised in LRV 453 Folio 22 also known as plot 90 William Street, Kyadondo Block 38 plot 220 Wandegeya & Kibuga Block 12 plot 197 Kampala.

 

  1. An order directing the Registrar of titles to register the suit properties  in the plaintiff’s name.

 

It is hereby ordered that the defendant shall pay the taxed costs of the suit.

 

Given under my hand and seal of this Honourable Court this 18th day of March, 2011.

 

sgd

Registrar

 

Extracted By:

Kyazze & Co. Advocates

Jumbo Plazza, Mezzanire F1, Suit 1.2

Plot 2 Parliament Avenue

P.O Box 3064,

Kampala”

 

It should be noted that the applicant never attached a judgment from which the applicant extracted that decree. The way the decree is worded, it appears to me that the suit was heard and disposed of by the Registrar. In the affidavit in support of this application no judgment of any sort is mentioned therein. It appears to me that Samalien Properties, the Register Proprietor of the suit land was never heard on the matter by the trial Court. The Registrar of the High Court has no powers to try any suit that is filed in the High Court. There is no proof showing how the HCCS no. 48 of 2011 was heard and determined in favour of the applicant. The trial from which the above decree was extracted is suspect.

 

In view of the above, I am of the view that the orders being sought in this application if they were to be granted, then such orders might create more confusion in the proprietorship of the suit lands. I would therefore decline to grant such orders to the applicant.

 

In the result, therefore, I do not see any merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.

 

Date at Kampala this 25th day of March, 2013.

 

sgd

Murangira Joseph

Judge