THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT NAKAWA
HIGH COURT CIVIL SUIT N0.162 OF 2006
DAVID ARTHUR BAGAMBE
CHIEF REGISTRAR OF TITLES
JUDGEMENT BY HON. MR. JUSTICE JOSEPH MURANGIRA
The plaintiff through his lawyers Ngaruye Ruhindi, Spenser & Co. Advocates sued the defendants jointly and/ or severally seeking among other declarations and orders that:-
That the plaintiff’s name be restored to the White page.
That under section 140 (2) of the Registration of Titles Act, without a Will or settlement a caveat purporting to be that of a beneficiary can lapse.
That without a hearing envisaged under section 91 of the Land Act, and without calling for duplicate certificates of title for cancellation, the Chief Registrar of Titles could not cancel the plaintiff’s registration from the White page.
That the notice served on the plaintiffs had not expired at the time his certificates of title were cancelled supposing mere notice would lead to cancellation notwithstanding (C) above.
Market value of the 12 acres of land at Sseguku to be paid by the estate.
In the further alternative and without prejudice to the foregoing, refund of the price coupled with 35% interest rate from the time of purchase till payment in full and market value of the developments.
Costs of the suit.
The plaintiff’s pleaded cause of action against the defendants in the plaint is that on or about the 2nd day of June, 2004, the 4th defendant as an administrator of the estate of the late Charles Makumbi Ddumba did dispose by way of sale the suit property to the plaintiff and rendered vacant possession. That no registered encumbrances existed on the title. And that subsequently in a move that can at best be described as fraudulent or collusion or/ and conspiracy the 2nd and the 3rd defendants lodged a caveat on the little immediately after the payment of the purchaser price and such was lodged on the 4th June, 2004 after the agreement after the payment of the purchaser price. That the said such was lodged on the 4th June, 2004 after the agreement of 2nd June, 2004, an act that was malicious. The particulars of malice were set out in the amended plaint.
Further, the plaintiff contends that the Chief Registrar of Titles does not have powers to cancel a registered interest under section 91 of the Land Act basing on section 140 (2) of the Registration of Titles Act if there
was no will or settlement before a caveat was lodged but which caveat was subsequently lapsed with a notice to the caveator.
And, lastly that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants being beneficiaries to the estate of the deceased cannot purport to agree to dispossess the plaintiff of the land he acquired lawfully as a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of any encumbrance or /claim from the 3rd party. That the plaintiff went ahead to take possession of the suit property and passed interest to other users.
In reply to the amended plaint, the 4th defendant, Solome Kaweesa, through her lawyers, contended and averred in the 6th paragraph of her written statement of defence that:-
On the 18th day of April, 1991, the 4th defendant was appointed the administrator of the estate of the late Charles Makumbi Ddumba by the Chief Magistrate’s Court of Mengo vide cause N0. 54 of 1991.
That having been appointed Administrator of the deceased’s estate, the 4th defendant was empowered to dispose any property of the deceased either wholly or in part, in such manner as she may think fit subject to the provisions of Section 27 of schedule 2 of the Succession Act which section does not apply to the suit property.
That having been conferred or empowered to dispose any of the deceased’s property, the 4th defendant on 2nd day of June, 2004 acting within the law rightly sold the suit property to the plaintiff and duly signed the transfer forms in favour of the plaintiff upon completion of the payment of the consideration which was agreed at Shs. 96, 000,000/= (Ninty six millions).
That the 4th defendant having sold the suit land to the plaintiff duly recognizes the plaintiff as the owner of the said property and registered
proprietor upon registration. The 4th defendant will add that all the proceeds from the sale were utilized for the benefits of the beneficiaries of the estate and other costs related to the administration
of the estate. (Underlining is mine for emphasis)
That the 4th defendant has never connived with any of other defendants to dispossess the plaintiff of ownership that was lawfully acquired. The 4th defendant will add that the caveat lodged by Phillip Ddumba and David Luzige was done without her blessing, consent or justification. (Underlining is mine for emphasis)
The 4th defendant shall further in reply to paragraph 4 aver that the consent entered between herself, the 2nd, and 3rd defendants is not binding on the plaintiff and does not affect his interest in the suit property which ceased to be part of the estate
of the late Makumbi Ddumba upon the sale and registration of the plaintiff. The 4th defendant shall add that the said consent was not based on the merit of the Civil Suit N0. 532 of 2004 but a compromise of the parties for the sake of family unity. The consent referred to was not entered fraudulently with the intent to dispossess the plaintiff since by the time the consent was signed, the plaintiff
was the registered proprietor implying that the suit property had already passed on to him and was no longer part of the estate of the deceased. (Underlining is mine for emphasis)
That the 4th defendant has at all times regarded the plaintiff as a bonafide purchaser who lawfully acquired the suit and therefore has no justification to ask the 1st defendant to cancel the plaintiff’s certificate of title. The 4th defendant will add that the 1st defendant acted within his authority and within the law in removing the caveat lodged by the 2nd and 3rd defendants and not erroneously as admitted by the 1st defendant section 140 (2) of the Registration of Titles Act does not apply to the removal of the 2nd and 3rd defendants’ caveat given the fact that the late Charles Makumbi Ddumba died intestate (without making a Will), there was no settlement at the
time of the sale and registration or any orders from court stopping the transaction between the plaintiff and the 4th defendant. (Underlining is mine for emphasis)
That the 4th defendant did not collude with any of the defendants to cancel the plaintiff’s title and was not even aware that the 1st defendant had cancelled the plaintiff’s name from the mother title without consequential orders from the High Court as required by law. The 4th defendant will add that the consent filed in the Chief Magistrate’s Court of Mengo arose from the Consent Judgment that was drafted by counsel for the 2nd and 3rd defendants and all the issues affecting the estate of the late Makumbi Ddumba were raised. (Underlining is mine for emphasis)
That the new Letters of Administration granted to the 2nd and 3rd defendants excludes all land the 4th defendant sold to the plaintiff and these defendants do not have any right over the same since the property had passed before they
acquired the letters of administration. (Underlining is mine for emphasis)
The 1st defendant through her office, Office of Titles, Kampala Mailo office, Century House, filed a Written Statement of Defence, denying all the allegations in the plaint. Its defence has no mention at all on the pleadings of the 4th defendant which in totality are against the 1st defendant.
Whereas, the 2nd and 3rd defendants, through their lawyers, Barya, Byamugisha & Co. Advocates filed their Written Statement of Defence on 30th August, 2006, and an amended defence dated 13th July, 2007 denying all the allegations against them by the plaintiff. The 2nd and 3rd defendants’ defence does not make any mention in form of a challenge to the 4th defendant’s defence to the plaint, which is dated 25th August, 2006, and the 4th defendant’s amended Written Statement of Defence to the amended plaint, dated 6th October, 2006, which in effect were, in my view, intended to destroy the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants’ defences. In this judgment an analysis of the defences to the plaint of parties jointly and / or severally sued which are contradicting shall be made.
The guist of the admitted facts by the parties is that all the parties agreed that the plaintiff bought the suit land from the 4th defendant who was at the time the administrator of the estate of the late Charles Makumbi Ddumba. That the plaintiff subdivided the suit land which initially was plot 15, Block 459 creating plots 84-127, constructed
roads but was initially prevented from transferring the suit land as there was a caveat lodged by the 2nd and 3rd defendants which was later lifted and the plaintiff got registered as proprietor. That the 1st defendant in the month of August, 2005 gave notice to the plaintiff that his registration was to be cancelled unless he produced a Court order, which he did but nonetheless the 1st defendant claimed it was obtained after the 21 days had expired and the plaintiff’s registration on the title was accordingly cancelled on 26th October 2006. And that notwithstanding that the order was registered on 16th August 2006.
The parties agreed to the following issues:
Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the 2nd and 3rd defendants.
Whether the plaintiff had capacity to cause the 1st defendant to issue notice to caveator.
Whether the transfer into the names of the plaintiff was lawful or valid.
Whether the cancellation of the plaintiff’s name by the 1st defendant was lawful.
Whether the parties are entitled to their respective relief’s sought.
Whether the acts of the 4th defendant prior to the annulment of the grant was valid.
Whether the plaintiff failed to mitigate and is privy to the loss.
Whether the transaction was illegal or of no effect.
Whether clause 4 (2) of the sale agreement prohibits the plaintiff from bringing the action against the defendants save the 4th defendant.
At the hearing, the plaintiff called two (2) witnesses (the plaintiff (PW1) and Isingoma Musana John (PW2)) who testified for the
plaintiff. The 3rd defendant (DW1) testified and Mr. Deo Bitaguma (DW2) testified for both 2nd and 3rd defendants. The 1st and 4th defendants did not testify and no evidence was called on their behalf in defence to the suit.
It is amazing that the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants chose not to adduce evidence in support of their respective pleadings. The said defendants never availed themselves for cross-examination on the evidence they had intended to adduce. The plaintiff and his only witness adduced
evidence against the said three (3) defendants. The said three (3) defendants never adduced evidence in rebuttal against the plaintiff’s evidence. Therefore, I find that whatever was said about the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants and was not contraverted in defence are taken to have been admitted by the said three (3) defendants.
The 1st defendant in her defence stated that whatever actions were taken were done lawfully and therefore denied that there was a cause of action against her. In her paragraph 5 of her Written Statement of Defence, it is stated that she cancelled the registration of the plaintiff among other
things, on the basis of the court orders of 16th September, 2005 (Annexture “ CR1”) of 28th September, 2005 (annexture “CR2”) collectively, and the Letters of Administration vide High Court Administration Cause No. 588 of 2006 (annexture “CR4”). That the 1st defendant also realized that the notice to caveator vide annexture “CR5” was according to decided cases null and void and of no legal effect. From the foregoing, I find it necessary to comment on the annextures of the 1st defendant. Annexture CR1 is an order of Registrar of the High Court granted exparte on 16th September, 2005. It ordered that:
“(a) that the caveat lodged on Busiro Block 459 plot 15 be extended until the hearing and final disposal of Civil Appeal N0. 1 of 2005, arising from Family
Cause Civil Suit N0. 1 of 2005.
(b) It is further ordered that if there are any steps to lift the said caveat it be stayed.
(c) That the costs of this application be in the cause”
This order of the Court is very clear; it did not order the cancellation of the plaintiff from the register and the Land title as opposed to the pleadings by the 1st defendant in her defence.
Annexture CR 2 is a decree on appeal which was granted by Hon. Justice Eldad Mwangusya, dated 28th September, 2005.
“ 1. The appeal be and is hereby allowed.
2. The Ruling /Order of His Worship Anguandia G. Opifeni Chief Magistrate dated 8th April, 2005 dismissing Civil Suit N0. 532 of 2004 is hereby set aside.
3. The suit (Civil Suit No. 532 of 2004) be remitted to Mengo Chief Magistrate’s court for trial.
4. The interim order passed on 16th September 2005 in Miscellaneous Application N0. 73 of 2005 between the parties hereto and the Commissioner for Land Registration extending the appellants’ caveat lodged on Busiro Block 459 plot 15 and ordering stay of all or any steps by any body to lift the said caveat, be stayed until the final disposal of Civil suit No. 532 of 2004
of the Chief Magistrate Court of Mengo.
5. Each Party bears its own costs in this appeal.”
It is noted, too, that this decree on appeal was not ordering the 1st defendant to cancel the registration of the plaintiff from the disputed land title.
Annexture CR3 is the Letters of Administration that was granted to the 2nd and 3rd defendants by the High Court of Uganda at Kampala on 15th June 2006. This grant was not ordering the 1st defendant to cancel registration of the plaintiff from the disputed title.
Annexture CR4 is a letter from the 1st defendant to the 2nd and 3rd defendants, dated 26th May, 2005, which was an application to remove a caveat lodged on Busiro Block 459 Plot 15. It reads:-
“This is to let you know that I have received an application to remove your caveat entered on the registered Book under instrument
KLA 261308 of 24th June 2004. Take notice that I will proceed to remove the caveat unless within 60 days from the date of service on you hereof you produce an order of the High Court to delay
or stop my proposed course of action.
Kaahwa Edward Tibesigwa
(Commissioner for Land Registration)”
This letter, too was not ordering the 1st defendant to cancel the registration of the plaintiff from the suit land Title.
It is the evidence of the plaintiff that, the 1st defendant after being prompted by exhibit P26 (letter dated 13th July 2006). She issued a notice to the plaintiff (which is annexture CR6 to her defence) undated which was received by Posta Uganda according to the card on 7th August 2006 and which the plaintiff received on 9th August 2006 and obtained an order of the Court (exhibit P21) stopping the intended course on the 15th August 2006 and filed it on 16th August 2006. This evidence was not challenged by the 1st defendant and even the rest of the defendants. It is therefore, my finding that the 21 days in the notice by the 1st defendant had not expired by the time the plaintiff obtained and registered the Order. That when the plaintiff’s Court Order was registered, only 10 (ten) had elapsed. Wherefore, the 1st defendant received the Court Order in time which for the reasons pleaded against her in the plaint which she did not challenge. The 1st defendant failed to hear any evidence from the plaintiff as required by section 91 of the Land Act, ignored and went ahead to cancel the registration of the plaintiff from the disputed land title. Such 1st defendant’s actions were contrary to the law.
Further, I agree with the plaintiff and his counsel to the extent that, even the 1st defendant erred in law, when she failed to comply with section 91 of the Land Act. There is no way the 1st defendant should have cancelled the registration of the plaintiff from the title and the Register Book without giving the plaintiff a hearing. To that extent, the action of cancellation of the registration of the plaintiff was void.
In the result, all the aforesaid analysis of the plaintiff’s case against the 1st defendant settles issues numbers 2, 4 and 5 in favour of the plaintiff as against as against the 1st defendant.
I now turn to the major issue in my view, in this litigation, that is, of whether the acts of the 4th defendant prior to annulment of the grant are valid.
Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd defendants submitted that in respect of the instant case, this is restricted to the act of Solome Kaweesa selling the suit land to the plaintiff as an administrator of the estate. That the act of sale in itself was valid. Mr. Byamugisha, Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd defendants argued in his submissions that the registration of the plaintiff as owner for the reasons they have already discussed was not proper. That the plaintiff failed to lodge a caveat under section 139 (1) of the Registration of Titles Act to protect his interests before registration.
In further submission by counsel for the 2nd and 3rd defendants noted rightly in my view, that his careful perusal of the 4th defendant’s amended Written Statement of Defence might indicate that the 4th defendant largely supported the plaintiff’s case. That so did her skeleton legal arguments on points of law. Having observed that, counsel for the 2nd and 3rd defendants did not invoke the discretion of the court to allow him to call her (4th defendant) for purposes of cross-examining her on the statements in her defence which statements waters down the 2nd and 3rd defendants pleadings in their defence to the plaintiff’s suit. Therefore, the 4th defendant’s statement in her defence remained unchallenged as against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants. In any case, I do not see any reasons that could be advanced by the 2nd and 3rd defendants when their Counsel in his submissions admitted that the 4th defendant’s act of sale itself was valid.
In the 4th defendant’s Written Submissions, her counsel submitted that the parties agreed in clause 1 of the agreed facts that on 18th April 1991, the 4th defendant was appointed the administrator of the estate of late Charles Makumbi Ddumba by the Chief Magistrate of Mengo vide Administration Cause N0. 54 of 199. That the parties still agreed in clause 33 of the agreed facts that the 4th defendant had the capacity to transact with the plaintiff and having been appointed administrator of the deceased’s estate, the 4th defendant was empowered to dispose of any property of the deceased. Counsel for the plaintiff is in agreement with this position. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendant’s different opinions that the 4th defendant did not have powers to sell do not hold any justification at law. The position of the law under section 134 of the Registration of Titles Act is to the effect that “A grantee of probate or letters of administration becomes the transferee and is deemed to be the proprietor of the land in issue.” Again, according to Hulsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd Edition, volume 16 at page 281, an administrator has full control of all the items making up the estate and can give a good title to them and can also enter a contract on behalf of the beneficiaries. And according to Megarry’s Manual of The Land of Real Property, 6th Edition by David J. Hayton while writing on personal representatives stated that personal representatives have all the powers of
trustee for sale. That a conveyance to a purchaser for value in good faith is not invalidated merely because the probate or letters of administration under which the personal representatives acted are subsequently revoked. See also the case
of Hewson vs Shelley (1914) 2 Ch.B.
In the instant case, from the pleadings of the plaintiff, the 4th defendant, their respective submissions and the law cited above, the sale transaction of the suit land by the 4th defendant to the plaintiff was valid. Further, I agree with the submissions of the 4th defendant and the plaintiff that the consents entered into between the 4th defendant, 2nd and 3rd defendants were not binding on the plaintiff nor affects the plaintiff’s interests in the suit property which ceased to be part of the estate of the late Charles Makumbi Ddumba upon the sale and registration of the plaintiff. By the time the 2nd and 3rd defendants obtained the letters of administration in the High Court of Uganda on 15th June 2006, the plaintiff was a registered proprietor, implying that the suit property had already passed to the plaintiff and was no longer part of the estate of the deceased. Wherefore,
the letters of administration that were granted to the 2nd and 3rd defendants excludes all the lands the 4th defendant sold to the plaintiff and the 2nd and 3rd defendants do not have any right over the same since the property had passed to the plaintiff before they acquired their Letters of Administration. From the foregoing analysis and arguments of the court, it is the holding of this Court that the acts of the 4th defendant prior to the annulment of her Letters of Administration were valid.
The finding above also disposes of the first issue of whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the 2nd and 3rd defendants. Their involvement and actions to dispossess the plaintiff of the suit property was unlawful. Hence, the plaintiff’s rights in the suit property were violated by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants.
Again, since the 4th defendant had powers of sale of the suit property to the plaintiff, the transfer of the suit property into the names of the plaintiff was lawful. Hence issue N0.3 is settled in favour of the plaintiff. And for the legal position held
by the plaintiff in the suit property, he had capacity to cause the 1st defendant to issue notice to caveator. Therefore, issue N0.2, too, is answered in favoured of the plaintiff.
On issue N0. 8 of whether the transaction was illegal or of no effect. Counsel for 2nd and 3rd defendants submitted that the entire transaction in the suit land is illegal and of no effect. In his cross-examination of the plaintiff and his only witness, counsel for the 2nd and 3rd defendants tried very hard to link the plaintiff to the acts of the 4th defendant and her lawyer. PW1 and PW2 in answer to the questions put to them in cross examination, maintained their stand that at the time of sale of the suit property, the plaintiff had no lawyer. That the 4th defendant’s lawyer is the one who did the transfers of the suit property into the names of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had intended to call that lawyer as his witness. However, that very lawyer came to court and informed court that for him he will be a witness for the 4th defendant. The plaintiff then had to drop him as his witness. This clearly shows that the said lawyer had nothing to do with the plaintiff, but rather he knew the 4th defendant as his client. In that endeavour, therefore, one cannot fault the plaintiff for the actions of Advocate for the 4th defendant.
The plaintiff (PW1) and (PW2) Isingoma Musana John testified and proved the circumstances under which the suit land was purchased, and this
was after carrying out a search and how the agreement was concluded and the papers left with the seller’s advocate to conclude the transaction, that how eventually the balance was paid, roads constructed and water pipes connected to the several plots but only
later to learn that there was a caveat by the 2nd and 3rd defendants. This evidence was not challenged by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and the 4th defendants in either by adducing their evidence in rebuttal nor in cross-examination of the plaintiff and his witness (PW2).
In the result, I hold that there were no illegalities committed by the plaintiff that could affect the said transaction between him and the 4th defendant. If it was to be true that less transfer fees were paid based on a low valuation figure of the suit property, the 1st defendant by way of counterclaim could have sued for the balance to be paid to Government. This was not done, and there is no conclusive evidence that was adduced by the 2nd and 3rd defendants in support of their claims that the plaintiff committed illegalities and that the cancellation of his registration was
based on the illegalities in the said sale transaction. The 1st defendant, moreover in her 5th paragraph of her Written Statement of Defence gave different reasons, as stated hereinabove, for the cancellation of the plaintiff’s certificates of title.
In respect to issue N0. 5 of whether the parties are entitled to the respective reliefs sought, and the issue N0. 9 of whether clause 4 (2) of the sale agreement prohibits the plaintiff from bringing the suit or action against the defendants save the 4th defendant, I am handling them together. I have hereinabove, already made findings that the sale transaction between the plaintiff and the 4th defendant was valid on grounds that the 4th defendant dealt with the suit land in her capacity as the administrator of the estate of the deceased and that at the time of sale, the 4 defendant’s Letters of administration were valid. And having held hereinabove that the plaintiff had a cause of action against 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants, it is evident that the plaintiff is entitled to relief’s sought for in the plaint against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants. There is no evidence that was adduced by the defendants that could convict court to deny the plaintiff the reliefs sought in the
Consequent to the above, it is the pleading and submissions of the 4th defendant that she sold the suit property to the plaintiff and that she is not involved in the actions of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants who dispossessed the plaintiff of the suit property she lawfully sold to him. She in that regard prayed for the dismissal of the suit with costs to her.
It should be noted that the 4th defendant according to the exhibits on which the 1st defendant based herself to cancel the registration of the plaintiff from the suit land were by consent between the 4th, 2nd and 3rd defendants. On this alone, the plaintiff was right to sue her for she is the very person he dealt with, which same person dealt with the
2nd and 3rd defendants to defeat the plaintiff’s interest in the suit land. The 2nd and 3rd defendants having ganged with the 1st defendant to defeat his interests, there is no way he would have left out the 4th defendant in this suit.
Also from the pleadings of all the parties and the evidence on record, the following constitute collusion of the defendants to defeat the interests of the plaintiff in the suit land:-
The failure by the 1st defendant to do the right thing and not assigning any reason for so not doing, for instance failure to conduct a hearing envisaged under section 91 of the Land Act as shown in exhibit P.13 or even calling for the duplicate certificates of title from the plaintiff for cancellation.
The 1st defendant deliberately and in concert with the 2nd and 3rd defendants purportedly hiding behind the notice to cancel the titles and later on Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd defendant to say even without notice titles could be cancelled notwithstanding that by the time of cancellation on 26th October 2006, there was a Court Order (exhibit P 21) prohibiting the 1st defendant from cancelling the plaintiff’s titles.
The 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants notwithstanding that the suit before the chief magistrate was for revocation of the letters of administration that were issued to the 4th defendant, went ahead and had the said grant (exhibit P7) annulled, without putting the interests of the plaintiff in their consent judgment. The reasons for the annulling, the grant were not given in the consent judgment.
Yet the grant to the 4th defendant by the Chief Magistrate Court of Mengo was valid under section 235 of the Succession Act cap. 162, Laws of Uganda.
The 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants colluding to make it appear that the Orders of the High Court cancelled the plaintiff’s name on the White Page whereas the said Orders which were obtained later came after the plaintiff had got registered on the title and were merely for extension of the caveat and not for cancellation for the plaintiff’s name on the White page (see exhibits P5, 17, 19 and 20).
From the above statements and evidence as gathered from the pleadings of the parties and the documentary exhibits, it is my finding that the 4th defendant contributed to the unlawful cancellation of the plaintiff’s name for the title, which action made the plaintiff to suffer damages and inconveniences of which entitles him to damages. However, at the same time, I wish to note that because of the actions of the 2nd and 3rd defendants which were being presented by two powerful law firms and supported by the 1st defendant, the 4th defendant could not, as a lay person in law, have changed the trend of events as they happened. It is also worth noting that the 4th defendant in her Written Statement of defence and in her submissions continually heaped all the blame to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendant’s explanations and pleadings plus her final submissions, and those notwithstanding the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants opted to continue the fight against the plaintiff. To that extent, the 4th defendant could be exonerated from general damages and costs of the suit.
In conclusion, considering all the arguments set out hereinabove and the law cited judgment is entered in favour of the plaintiff in the following terms:-
The plaintiff is the bonafide purchaser of land comprised of Busiro Block 459, Plot 15 which is now subdivided into plots 84 -127.
The 1st defendant is directed to reinstate the plaintiff’s name as the proprietor on the Certificate of Title comprised in Busiro Block 459 Plot 15 with immediate effect, that is, within
a one month from the date of this judgment.
The 2nd and 3rd defendants are to be deregistered from the suit title by the 1st defendant to give vacant possession of the suit land comprised in Busiro Block 459 plot 15 to the plaintiff as his property immediately after the delivery
of this judgment.
An order of permanent injunction barring the defendants, their agents, relatives or any of the persons delivering authority from them from interfering with the plaintiff’s interests in the suit land is granted.
The 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants shall pay to the plaintiff Shs. 20,000,000/= (twenty million shillings) as general damages arising from the effects of cancellation of his certificate of title. The
sufferings and inconveniences the plaintiff suffered entitle him to the general damages as awarded. The awarded damages shall carry an interest at a court rate from the date of this judgment till payment in full.
Costs of the suit shall be paid by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants.
Dated at Kampala this 14th day of December, 2009.