Court name
High Court of Uganda
Case number
Miscellaneous Cause 17 of 2020
Judgment date
10 March 2021

Ddungu Charles v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause 17 of 2020) [2021] UGHC 29 (10 March 2021);

Cite this case
[2021] UGHC 29
Coram
Ojok, J

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT MPIGI

MISC. CAUSE NO. 0017 OF 2020

DDUNGU CHARLES =========================APPLICANT

VERSUS

COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REGISTRATION ===RESPONDENT

BEFORE: HONOURABLE JUSTICE OYUKO ANTHONY OJOK

RULING

This Application was brought by Notice of Motion supported by anaffidavit of DdunguCharles  under Section 167 of the Registration of Titles Act  , Order 52 rules 1 & 2  and Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act  seeking  for orders ;

  1. Vesting  orders be issued
  2. Costs be provided for.

Representation

The applicant was represented by Counsel Sabakaki but the respondent was not represented.

Submission

Counsel for the applicant submitted orally

The grounds are supported by the affidavit ofDdunguCharles and the supplementary affidavit ofMugerwaSulaiman Mubarak.

It is averred by the Applicant that Iknow the Registered Proprietor ofthe land   comprised in Mawokota Block 248 Plot7  land at Kasinde , Mpigi District, belonging to Andrea Kapere .  That the applicant purchased  the suit property from Mugerwa  Mubarak  vide the sale agreement dated 5th June,2015 who had  purchased the same  from the late Andrea Kapere  and immediately took possession.

That the late Andrea Kapere before his death had  handed over the Certificate  of Title  of the suit property  to Mugerwa  Mubarak  who in turn handed over to the Applicant.

 

Unfortunately, the certificate of title was not handed over to the Applicant because it got lost from the bank but Mubarak swore a statutory declaration and produced a report fromPolice.

Further the Applicant was informed and produced a death Certificate as proof that AndereaKapere died and assuch he couldn’t give him another transfer form.

 

It  was also his evidence that  he tried  to apply to the Respondent to have  the suit  land vested in him but all in vain.

The Respondent was served but never filed the affidavit in reply .

Counsel properly directed me on Section 167  Registration of Titles Act Cap 230  as the applicable law in application with this nature.

“If  its proved to the  satisfaction  of the Registrar  that  land under  this act has been sold by the proprietor and the whole of the purchase money is paid  and that  all those claiming  under the  purchaser have entered and taken possession under the purchase  and that entry and possession have been acquiesced  by the vendor  or his or her representatives, but that a transfer  has never been executed by the vendor and can’t be obtained  by reason  that the vendor is dead or is residing out of the jurisdiction  or can’t be found. The   Registrar may make a vesting order  in the premises and may include in the order a direction  for payment of such  additional fee in respect of assurance with title as he or she may think fit and  the Registrar upon  the payment of the additional fee,  if any  shall effect  the Registration  directly  to be made .

S. 166 Registration of titles Act in case of a vesting order  mentioned there  and  the effecting  or the omission  to effect that registration  shall be attended by the same results as declared by S. 166 RTA in respect of the vesting order  mentioned there.”

 

Counsel for the Applicant cited the case of Aida  Najembavs Ester Mpagi CCA NO. 74/2005 wherein court gave someguidance as to the conditions which  ought to be satisfied under the above section before the registrar can  exercise  his or her powers  these are:

  1.  That the land must be registered under the Registration of titles actand  the purchaser must have  paid all the purchase price to the vendor.
  2. That the purchaser or those claiming under him or her have taken possession of the suit land.
  3. That the purchaser has entered the land and the entry has been  acquired by the vendor  or his or her representative.
  4. That the transfer of the property hasn’t been executed because the vendor is dead or residing out of the  jurisdiction or can’t be  found.

 

Resolution

All these  conditions  were satisfied by  the Applicant.

It is trite law that before an applicant invokes the inherent jurisdiction of court under section 98  Civil Procedure Act  Cap 71,  in applications of this nature he/she  must  have applied  first  for a vesting order to the Commissioner for land Registration/Registrar, who for some reason  must have  declined to exercise his or her powers  under section 167 of RTA Cap 230, See Aida Najjemba  versus  Ester Mpgi (supra).

It was not disputed that the Respondent declined to vest the suit land in the names of the applicant, upon application.  I am therefore satisfied that the conditions precedent for invocation of the courts inherent Jurisdiction has been satisfied by this application.

Turning now to the conditions above having carefully looked at the whole application, I am satisfiedof no doubt with all the above conditions.  In the circumstancesI entirelyagree with the Applicants counsel that this application ought to be granted as prayed.  I therefore order as follows:

  1. That the respondentvest land comprised in private Mailo block  246  Plot 7  land situatedat  KasindeMpigi  District
  2. That the Applicant meets all the fees necessary for vesting the suit  land into his names.
  3. The applicant meets costs of this application.

 

I so order.

Oyuko Anthony Ojok

Judge

10/March, 2021