THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
MISC. CAUSE NO. 0125 OF 2019
SEMAKULA JAMES KULEKAANA::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT
V E R S U S
COMMISSIONER LAND REGISTRATION:::::::::::RESPONDENT
BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE HENRY I KAWESA
The Applicant moved this Court by Notice of Motion for orders that;
- An order doth issue directing the Commissioner Land Registration to reinstate Ernest Semakula on land comprised in Block 719 plot 16 and that the Respondent be compelled to register the Applicant on the same.
- The Respondent recalls the original duplicate certificate of titles which was illegally mutated/subdivided from the original plot 16 and thereafter transferred in different parties.
- Plot 20 which was later subdivided into plots 23-25 be merged and amalgamated to plot 16, alternatively all plots arising from plot 16 be cancelled and be reinstated in the names of the original registered proprietor Ernest Semakula, upon which be registered in the names of the Applicant as administrator.
- Costs of the application be provided for.
The application is supported by the affidavit of Semakula James Kulekaana.
I have read the said affidavit and application alongside the record of proceedings. On 25th February 2020 when the matter came up, this Court granted the Applicant leave to proceed exparte; and to file submissions by 9th March 2020. No submissions are on file. However, a perusal of this application shows that whereas the Chief Magistrate gave orders on 25th February 2019, that the Applicant be registered on the certificate of title on block 719 plot 23 Bulemezi. Such orders cannot be extended to cover other plots; plots; 16 and 23-25 and plot 20, which were not a subject of litigation in Misc. Application No.20 of 2019; James Semakula versus James Sentamu & Ors from which this application arises.
I am therefore unable to grant the consequential orders sought as the affidavit is support sworn by Mr. Semakula raises new issues regarding fraud in paragraphs 3 & 4) which was never the issue before the Magistrates Court.
The affidavit also raises issues of forgery (paragraph 5), (paragraph. The affidavit is referring to new evidence which was never brought to the attention of the Chief Magistrate under paragraph 8,9,10 and 11. These cannot be relied on by this Court to make consequential orders on matters which are contentious, yet they have not been finally determined on.
For that reason, I find that the Applicant has failed to prove the motion on the balance of probabilities.
It is dismissed. Each party to bear its own costs.
I so order.
Henry I. Kawesa
Kyalisima Brian for the Applicant.
Court: Ruling delivered to the party above.
Henry I. Kawesa