THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMAPALA
CIVIL SUIT NO. 497 OF 2005
2. NAMBOOZE EDRISA ) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFFS
2. KASSAIJA CHRISTOPHER ) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: DEFENDANTS
BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE RUBBY AWERI OPIO
During the scheduling conference the following facts were agreed:
(2) That at the time of his death, the late Ezra Busulwa was the registered proprietor of land comprised in Busiro Block 379 Plot 10 at Bunamwaya.
The Plaintiffs pleaded the following particulars of fraud:
The 2nd Defendant on his part averred that he purchased the suit property from the 1st Defendant for value after carrying out a search from the registry of titles and satisfying himself that the 1st Defendant was the registered proprietor thereof. He averred further that he made inquiries from the local authorities of the area where the suit was about the 1st Defendant’s ownership before entering into sale agreement with him.
(1) Whether the 1st Defendant was validly registered as proprietor of Busiro block 379 Plot 10 situate at Bunamwaya.
(2) Whether the 2nd Defendant is a bona fide purchaser for value.
(3) What remedies are available to the parties if any.
To prove the above issue the Plaintiffs adduced the evidence of four witnesses including the Plaintiffs themselves. The Defendants also relied on the evidence from four witnesses, including themselves.
In summary the evidence adduced by the Plaintiffs ran as follows:-
Yudaya Nackyenga Kasamba Pw1 testified that she got to know the Plaintiffs in the year 2000 when she developed interest in land at Bunamwaya where a lady called Mariam Kizza had a Kibanja. She came to know the Plaintiffs as daughters of the late Busulwa and Mariam was their step mother. When she agreed to pay the purchase price she insisted on meeting the owners of the land she was buying whereupon she was introduced to the Plaintiffs as the owners of the suit land. The Area Local Council Chairperson Mr. Segawa and the neighbours confirmed that the Plaintiffs were the owners of the land and they told him how the Plaintiffs got the land through their father’s will. The suit land was 20 acres and were given to 4 girls but two had died leaving the Plaintiffs. She stated that after getting the truth she paid the purchase price for the Kibanja in the presence of the LC I Chairperson, the Defence Secretary and Secretary for Women. Thereafter, she took possession of the Kibanja and planted thereon crops. However in November 2005 problem arose when she was informed that the land had been sold by the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendant who was threatening to evict all the occupants. She informed the Plaintiffs about the matter but they said they had never sold the land to the 2nd Defendant or authorised the 1st Defendant to do so.
Christopher Kawesi 79 Pw2 years old testified inter alia that he knew the Plaintiffs because he had lived with them when he was a student and their deceased father was his guardian. Before his death the deceased asked him to write for him a will which he did. The deceased had three pieces of land – one in Kyadondo, one in Bunamwaya and another in Katale Busiro. The deceased distributed the land as follows: Kyadondo land was given to Kawuma and Kayiwa. The land in Busiro was given to Zikula Batesaki his sister, Nabanoba his daughter, Nakakawa his daughter, Nambooze his other daughter and Nasozi his daughter. Those were 20 acres.
The deceased left 5 acres as for burial ground. In Busiro there were two pieces of land. The other piece the deceased gave to his son Busulwa who later died and his successor called Kawuma also died. Nasozi and Zikala also died. He continued that Ezra Busulwa made two copies of the will and gave one copy to Polycarp and remained with one copy of the will. The will was read during Ezra Busulwa’s burial and no one objected to its contents. He concluded that in the will the late Busulwa gave the 20 acres of land to his sisters and the four daughters Nabanoba, Nasozi, Nambooze and Nakakawa. He stated that he knew the contents of the will because he was the one who wrote it and because he had never left that village and had been in touch with the Plaintiffs. He swore statutory declaration exhibit P3 because the will had been hidden by the 1st Defendant.
Desiranta Nabanoba Pw3 80 years old testified inter alia, that the 1st Defendant was their brother. She testified that the suit land was given to them by their deceased father and that is where she is staying together with the 2nd Plaintiff who is her follower. She testified that the deceased gave the boys land in a different place from theirs. However the 1st Defendant decided to sell off the suit land without their authority or consent. They got information about the sale from their squatters. After learning about the unlawful sale she contacted the lawyer Kiiyimba who wrote to the person who had bought the same. She concluded that they gave the 1st Defendant consent to obtain Letters of Administration to look after the estate but not to sell the suit land.
Edisa Nambooze Pw4 70 years old testified that Nabanoba was her elder sister while Kayima Joseph, the 1st Defendant was their half-brother. She testified that their father the late Ezra Busulwa made a will bequeathing the suit land to them. Subsequently they gave the 1st Defendant authority to apply for Letters of Administration so that he could transfer the suit land into their names. However after getting Letter of Administration, the 1st Defendant decided to fraudulently register the suit land in his names before selling to the 2nd Defendant.
In his defence Kayiwa Joseph Dw1 denied that the suit land was bequeathed to the Plaintiffs by the deceased. He stated that the 20 acres belonged to him and he was right to sell it to the 2nd Defendant as the administrator of the deceased. Mariam Kizza Dw2 testified that she was the wife of the late Ezra Busulwa, and that she knew the land in dispute and that the Plaintiffs had given the 1st Defendant responsibility to look after the suit land. Later on she came to learn that the 1st Defendant had sold the suit land to the 2nd Defendant.
Male Moses Dw3 gave a short evidence in which he stated that there was no problem with the sale of the suit land made by the 1st Defendant because he had been given responsibility to oversee the estate of his grandfather by the Plaintiffs who were his aunties. He concluded that the 1st Defendant had the power to sell the suit land.
Lastly Christopher Kassaija Dw4 testified that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. He stated that before purchasing the suit land he verified the title and was assured by the neighbours that the 1st Defendant was the real owner of the suit land.
RESOLUTION OF ISSUES
Issue No. I: Whether the 1st Defendant was validly registered as the proprietor of Busiro Block 379 Plot 10 at Bunamwaya.
From the evidence on record, particularly evidence of Christopher Kawesi Pw2 aged 79 years testified that the late Ezra Busulwa, the father of the Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant died in 1968. Before his death the deceased who was also his guardian, requested him to write for him a will which he did. In that will, the deceased bequeathed Land in Kyadondo to Kauma and the 1st Defendant while the suit land was given to Nabanoba Desiranta, Nambooze Edisa, Nakakawa, Nasozi and Zikula Batesaki. 5 acres of land was left as burial ground. He testified that during Ezra Busulwa’s burial, the said will was read after the funeral and the 1st Defendant never objected to the contents of the will giving the Plaintiffs the suit land. Mariam Kizza Dw2 in her evidence confirmed that the suit property was given to the Plaintiffs who in turn gave responsibility to the 1st Defendant to look after it.
The said will could not be traced allegedly because it was said to be in the custody of the 1st Defendant who could not produce it because of his personal interest in the suit property. However Pw2 swore a statutory declaration (exhibit P3) to the extent that he had written the said will. Looking at the contents of the declaration I do believe that the witness was familiar with the same to enable him remember the contents of the will after a very long time. The witness stated that ever since drafting the will he has lived in the same village. I find him a credible witness to testify about the will and the ownership of the suit property.
The Plaintiffs testified that they gave the 1st Defendant consent to apply for Letters of Administration to look after the estate but they did not authorise him to sell their land. That authority was merely to enable him oversee the estate and transfer the suit land into their names.
It was the contention of the defence that upon getting authority to apply for Letters of Administration the 1st Defendant was entitled to deal in the suit property in the way he did by registering it in his names and selling to the 2nd Defendant.
Section 25 of the Succession Act clearly states that all property in an intestate devalves upon the personal representative of the deceased upon trust for those persons entitled to such property.
The import of the above section is that upon receipt of Letters of Administration or probate the 1st Defendant’s duty was to transfer the suit land into the names of the beneficiaries and to ensure that they got their own certificates of titles. To the chargrin of the Plaintiffs, the 1st Defendant never did the above but instead transferred the land into his own names and sold it to the 2nd Defendant. The Plaintiffs even in their lay status had a better appreciation of the law where they were emphatic that they never authorised the 1st Defendant to transfer the ownership of the suit land into his names and to sell it. In her own words the 1st Plaintiff said:
The procedure for transferring proprietor of land from the deceased person to his or her personal or legal representative as provided under Section 134 of the Registration of Titles Act was also contravened by the 1st Defendant.
The above section provides as follows:-
In the absence of Letters of Administration as of the 31st October 2000 in favour of the 1st Defendant, his registration was neither proper nor legal as it was done contrary to Section 134 (1) of the Registration of Titles Act. Therefore the acts of the 1st Defendant was fraudulent and as such he was not validly registered as proprietor of the suit land.
Secondly transfer into the executor or administrator’s name does not mean that the land devolves upon the personal estate of the executor or administrator such that he can do whatever he wishes with the land without recourse to the interest of other beneficiaries. His or her duty is to hold the land in trust for this beneficiaries: See JONAH SENTEZA KANYEREZI & Another v The Chief Registrar of Titles & 2 Others, High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 919 of 1997 (Unreported).
In view of the above finding I find that the 1st Defendant was not validly registered as proprietor of Busiro block 379 Plot 10, the suit land situate at Bunamwaya. Hence his title was void as per Section 77 of the Registration of Titles Act for fraud.
Issue No. 2: Whether the 2nd Defendant is a bona fide purchaser for value.
Section 181 of the Registration of Titles Act is to the effect that only a bona fide purchaser for value is protected under the Act in any action of ejection, or for recovery of damages or for deprivation of the estate.
A bona fide purchaser is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Edition at page 1271 as follows:-
In Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd. & Others, SCCA No. 4 of 2006 Hon. Bart Katureebe JSc cited Black’s Law Dictionary to define fraudulent as “To act with intent to defraud means to act wilfully, and with the specific intent to deceive or cheat; ordinarily for the purpose of either causing some financial loss to another or bringing about some final gain to oneself.”
The Learned Judge also cited KAMPALA BOTTLERS LTD. V DAMANICO (U) LTD, SCCA No. 22 of 1992:
It was contended for the Plaintiffs that the 2nd Defendant had constructive or actual notice of the Plaintiffs’ interest and therefore his title was affected by the said interest and as such that knowledge was to be imputed as fraud. It was contended further that the 2nd Defendant did not bother to inquire into the ownership of the suit property for fearing to find the truth or that the results of the inquiry might operate against his interest, having had reasonable notice of the Plaintiffs’ occupation of the suit land.
I would like to point out that before one enters into a transaction involving purchase of land very serious inquiries should be done to establish what is on the ground. This is so because our land tenure system is full of contraverses. Therefore one has to be sure about what he or she is purchasing. In most cases it would involve using the area local authorities to help establish who are in occupation of the land and their interests. In the instant case, the sale agreement was done without involving the local area Chairperson. That procedure seems to be contrary to the standard procedure in that area according to Yudaya Kasamba Pw3 who testified inter alia that before buying land in that area she made inquiries before the LC I Chairperson and the neighbours. The fact that the 2nd Defendant opted to enter into the transaction without involving neighbours and local area authorities would imply that he had knowledge of the existence of the Plaintiffs’ interest but decided to ignore because of reasons best known to himself. As the law stands a person who purchases an estate which he knows to be in occupation of another person other than the vendor is not a bona fide purchaser without notice. See UPTC v Abraham Katumba  IV KARL 103. Here since 2nd Defendant failed to make reasonable inquiries of the persons in possession as such his ignorance or negligence formed particulars of fraud: See Taylor v Stibbert [1803 – 13] AIIER 432.
In this case the 2nd Defendant allegedly bought the suit property which was in occupation of the Plaintiffs. There was therefore physical encumbrance which he ought to have taken notice thereof. He was therefore guilty of gross negligence or deliberately omitting to make proper inquiries about the status of the property. Therefore his negligence was particular of fraud on his part.
Another problem with the transaction was the value of the suit land. Christopher Kassaija in his testimony stated inter alia, that he was to buy the land at a total price of 50,000,000/=. However he realised later that he did not have enough money. So he entered into a mutual understanding with Mr. Kayiwa and paid him Shs.13,000,000/= for the 20 acres on condition that he would pay him the balance later. However in the Sale Agreement (exhibit P7) the purchase price was indicated at 13,000,000/= and did not show that there was unpaid balance. That was clear evidence that Kassaija was deceitful and fraudulent.
Thirdly, it was the testimony of the 1st Defendant that he sold the suit land to the 2nd Defendant at 50,000,000/= of which he received Shs.45,000,000/=. However the valuation documents showed that the 2nd Defendant had paid Shs. 6,000,000/= which both Defendants acknowledged to be false declaration. This false declaration which caused financial loss to the Government clearly casts a shadow of doubt about the genuineness of the Sale Agreement. It further casts doubts on the credibility of the two Defendants.
For the above reasons I find that the alleged transaction was surrounded by frauds attributable to the both the transferee and transferor. As a result the 2nd Defendant does not qualify to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The transaction was concocted to deprive the elderly ladies of the suit property which legally belonged to them by their birth rights.
Issue No. 3: Remedies available to the parties.
The Plaintiffs prayed for the following orders:-
As for general damages, the law is strict that it has to be pleaded and proved. Though pleaded there was no proof of eviction. Infact it was the evidence of the Plaintiffs that they were not dispossessed. The 2nd Defendant merely threatened to throw them out of the suit land. However, there was evidence that the Plaintiffs suffered loss and injuries. They did suffer psychological and physical suffering because it was their own brother who was trying to defraud them. They lived under constant threats of eviction. This land was granted to them by their late father and it was the only thing which was attaching them to their beloved father. They had a very serious sentimental attachment to the suit property. Those were compounded by the fact that they are very old ladies. It was very harsh to subject them to the rigors of litigation. For the above reasons I find that they are entitled to general damages. Taking the fact that assessment of general damages is not an exact science and there is no Mathematical formula which court can use to determine the amount, I find that considering the conduct of the 1st Defendant and the circumstances I have outlined above, a figure of 10,000,000/= (ten million) by way of general damages would be reasonable. It is accordingly awarded.
The Plaintiffs are further entitled to costs of this suit. I so order.
HON. JUSTICE RUBBY AWERI OPIO
Mr. Katutsi for Defendants
Judgment read in Chambers and signed.
HON. JUSTICE RUBBY AWERI OPIO