Florence Ndaula Tazalika v Hajati Zawadi Sharifu (Civil Suit No.1112 Of 1996) (Civil Suit No.1112 of 1996) [2000] UGHC 28 (6 September 2000)

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f201\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f202\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f204\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f205\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f206\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f207\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f208\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f209\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{ \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa100\sbauto1\saauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid8651767 Normal (Web);}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\listtable{\list\listtemplateid834278948\listhybrid{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid1881829062 \'03(\'00);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}\fbias0 \fi-465\li825\jclisttab\tx825\lin825 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698713\'02\'01.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;} \fi-360\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440\lin1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698715\'02\'02.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-180\li2160\jclisttab\tx2160\lin2160 } {\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698703\'02\'03.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li2880\jclisttab\tx2880\lin2880 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0 \leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698713\'02\'04.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li3600\jclisttab\tx3600\lin3600 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698715\'02\'05.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-180\li4320\jclisttab\tx4320\lin4320 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \leveltemplateid67698703\'02\'06.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li5040\jclisttab\tx5040\lin5040 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698713 \'02\'07.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li5760\jclisttab\tx5760\lin5760 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698715\'02\'08.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-180\li6480 \jclisttab\tx6480\lin6480 }{\listname ;}\listid447940661}}{\*\listoverridetable{\listoverride\listid447940661\listoverridecount0\ls1}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid1972057\rsid8651767\rsid9201877\rsid9589395\rsid10683945\rsid10753956\rsid11168220\rsid11430770 \rsid12911510\rsid13262273\rsid13303940\rsid16002141}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA }{\author DELL}{\operator DELL}{\creatim\yr2009\mo11\dy9\hr13\min3}{\revtim\yr2009\mo11\dy9\hr13\min35}{\version11} {\edmins35}{\nofpages8}{\nofwords2118}{\nofchars12077}{\nofcharsws14167}{\vern24689}}\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440 \dghshow1\dgvshow1\jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot8651767\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}} {\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (} {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9201877 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs26\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA}{ \b\fs26\insrsid9201877\charrsid13303940 \par }{\b\fs26\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPAL}{\b\fs26\insrsid9201877\charrsid13303940 A \par }{\b\fs26\insrsid13303940 CIVIL SUIT NO.}{\b\fs26\insrsid9201877\charrsid13303940 1112 OF 1996 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8651767 {\b\fs26\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 FLORENCE NDA}{\b\fs26\insrsid13303940 ULA TAZALIKA\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85 \'85\'85}{\b\fs26\insrsid9201877\charrsid13303940 PLAINTIFF \par }\pard \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9201877 {\b\fs26\insrsid9201877\charrsid13303940 VERSUS \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8651767 {\b\fs26\insrsid13303940 HAJATI ZAWADI SHARIFU\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85}{ \b\fs26\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 DEFENDANT }{\b\fs26\insrsid9201877\charrsid13303940 \par }{\b\fs26\ul\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 BEFORE; THE }{\b\fs26\ul\insrsid9201877\charrsid13303940 HON MR. JUSTICE E. S. LUGAYIZI \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9201877 {\b\fs26\ul\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 JUDGMENT:}{\b\fs26\ul\insrsid9201877\charrsid13303940 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9201877 {\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 The plaintiff sued the defendant for trespass and fraud in respect of her custo mary holding (popularly known as Kibanja) lying on Block 3 Plot 530 Mengo, Nakulabye and prayed Court to gr}{\insrsid9589395\charrsid13303940 ant her the following reliefs, \par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 (a) }{\insrsid9589395\charrsid13303940 An}{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 order cancelling the defendant as the registered proprietor of the suit premises; }{\insrsid9589395\charrsid13303940 \par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 (b) }{\insrsid9589395\charrsid13303940 An}{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 order reinstating the caveat lodged by the plaintiff o}{\insrsid9589395\charrsid13303940 n the Certificate of title for the suit premises;

\par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 (c) }{\insrsid9589395\charrsid13303940 An}{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 order evicting the def}{\insrsid9589395\charrsid13303940 endant from the suit premises; \par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 (d) }{\insrsid9589395\charrsid13303940 General}{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 d}{\insrsid9589395\charrsid13303940 amages for trespass and fraud; \par (e) Costs of this suit; \par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 (f) }{\insrsid9589395\charrsid13303940 Interest of 20% from the date of judg}{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 ment until}{\insrsid9589395\charrsid13303940 payment in full. \par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 In her amended WSD the defendant denied the above claim and, among other things, averred that she was a bona fide purchaser for value of the suit premises. }{\insrsid1972057\charrsid13303940 \par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 At the time of hearing the suit, the plaintiff called five witnesses namely, herself (PW1); Sozi Grace (PW2); Lewis Peterson (PW3); Jane Nakiyemba (PW4) and Opio Robert (PW5). In very brief terms those witnesses testified as follows. That in }{ \insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 1958}{\insrsid1972057\charrsid13303940 ,}{\i\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 the plaintiff bought the Kibanja in question from one Miriamu Nakimu. The said Kibanja is found in Ki}{ \insrsid10753956\charrsid13303940 wunya at Nakulabye. Subsequently the plaintiff built two}{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 houses on it. One of them had five rooms and the other one had three rooms with a kitchen and a bathroom. Eventually, when Nakimu died, her successor was willing to allow the plaintiff to buy the land on which the Kibanja in question is found. However, around 1990 the plaintiff had a serious accident and remained very sick for some time. She gave her nephew, o}{\insrsid10753956\charrsid13303940 ne Willy Mudim}{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 a, money and entrusted him with the responsibility of buying the said land for her. Mudima took the money and bought the land, but did not transfer it into the plaintiff \rquote s name. Instead, he had it transferred into his name, mortgaged it and obtained a bank loan which he failed to pay back. Mudima did not tell the plaintiff what he had done. However, after some time, when the plaintiff realised that there was a wrangle in respect of the suit premises, she lodged a caveat on its Certificate of

title that is kept by the Land Registry. Eventually, the plaintiff was evicted from the Kibanja in question. She was not given any notice prior to that or compensation for the developments on the Kibanja. She therefore prayed Court to give her the remedie s}{\insrsid10753956\charrsid13303940 outlined in the amended plaint. \par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 On her part, the defendant called three witnesses namely, herself (DW1); Paulo Kafeero (DW2); and Haji Nyika Umar Kisuule (DW3). Those witnesses testified as follows. That the defendant bought the suit premises from Allied Building Society in 1997 for a sum of Shs.8m/-. That took place after court brokers who were acting for the bank advertised the suit premises. Prior to buying the suit premises, the defendant, her husband (Umar Kisuule- DW3-) and the bank\rquote s lawyer (Nagem i) inspected it and liked it. The defendant and her husband were shown the Certificate of title for}{\insrsid10753956\charrsid13303940 the suit premises and a court }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 order }{\insrsid10753956\charrsid13303940 i}{ \insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 n }{\insrsid10753956\charrsid13303940 connection with that matter. }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 The defendant signed an agreement in respect of the suit premises and paid the purchase pr ice after being satisfied that there was no one claiming it as his or her own. The defendant had no knowledge before the sale that the plaintiff had an interest in the suit premises. She therefore prayed Court to}{\insrsid10753956\charrsid13303940 dismiss this suit with costs. \par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 The agreed i ssues were five in number, but on the evidence on record it seems clear that it is not disputed that the defendant bought the suit premises and had, herself registered as the proprietor thereof. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff had an interest in the suit premises at one point. However, the defendant maintains that at the time she bought the suit premises she was not aware of such interest. As a result of the foregoing, Court thinks that the only iss}{\insrsid10753956\charrsid13303940 ues to resolve are as follows: \par 1. }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 Whether the defendant fraudule}{\insrsid10753956\charrsid13303940 ntly bought the suit premises? \par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 2. Whether the defendant was a bona fide p}{\insrsid10753956\charrsid13303940 urchaser of the suit premises? \par 3. The available remedies. \par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 Court will dispose of the above issues in the order in which they are presented. \par However, before discussing the first issue, Court wishes to point out a few things. Firstly, despite the fact that the plaintiff was a Kibanj}{\insrsid10753956\charrsid13303940 a }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 holder her interest in the land in question was secured by a caveat that was registered on }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 28}{\super\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 th}{\b\fs16\insrsid10753956\charrsid13303940 }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 April 1994. Court will for that reason consider her interest from that standpoint}{\insrsid10753956\charrsid13303940 . Secondly, over time some well }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 est}{\insrsid10753956\charrsid13303940 ablished principles have evolved in this area of }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 land law, which are important to keep in mind as Court goes along. One of those principles is that it is not enough to show that the re was fraud in the process in which the transferee acquired the land in question. The fraud complained of must have been directly committed by the transferee himself or, the transferee must have been aware of the fraud before and taken advantage of it to register as the transferee. (See }{\ul\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Supreme Court Civil Appeal No.22 of 1992). }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 The other principle is that since an allegation of fraud is a serious matter, the standard of proof required to prove it is \'93a little higher\'94 than the ordinary civil standard of proof. In the case of }{\b\ul\insrsid16002141\charrsid13303940 R. }{ \b\ul\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 G. Patel v Lalji Makanji }{\b\fs26\ul\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 (1957)}{\b\i\fs26\ul\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 }{\b\ul\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 E. A. 314 at page 317,}{ \insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 the Court of Appeal for East Africa expressed that standard in these words, }{\insrsid16002141\charrsid13303940 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li720\ri720\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid16002141 {\i\insrsid16002141\charrsid13303940 \'93...not..}{\i\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 .so heavy as to require proof beyond reasonable doubt, \line something more than a mere balance }{\i\insrsid16002141\charrsid13303940 of probabilities is required.\'94 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9201877 {\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 The burden of proof lies on the party alleging fraud to prove it. (See }{ \ul\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 sections 100 and 101 of }{\insrsid16002141\charrsid13303940 the Evidence Act (Cap. 43). \par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 Be that as it may, with regard to the first issue, Court will begin by defining \'93fraud\'94. }{\ul\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 Blacks Law Dictionary Abridged (Sixth Edition) }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 defines fraud as \'93An intentional perversion of truth }{\fs8\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 ... }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 A false representation of a matter of fact... Anything calculated to deceive...\'94. However, in the case of }{ \b\ul\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 Waimiha Saw Milling Co. Ltd v Waione Timber Co. (1926) AC 101 }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 the Privy Council at page 106 provided a simpler definition of fraud. That definition reads as follows fraud}{ \insrsid16002141\charrsid13303940 \'93}{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 implies some act of dishonesty.\'94 Court shall, in the instant case, take fraud to mean, \'93}{\insrsid16002141\charrsid13303940 Some}{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 act of d}{ \insrsid16002141\charrsid13303940 ishonesty\'94. It will then}{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 proceed}{\insrsid16002141\charrsid13303940 to examine whether }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 the acts of fraud laid out in paragraph 9 of the amended plaint measure up to that definition; and whether those acts were actually committed by the defendant or, she was aware of their commission at the time she bought the suit premises. \line The first alleg}{\insrsid16002141\charrsid13303940 ation of fraud was as follows: \par {\listtext\pard\plain\s15 \insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (a)\tab}}\pard \s15\qj \fi-465\li825\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar \jclisttab\tx825\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls1\adjustright\rin0\lin825\itap0\pararsid16002141 {\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 The defendant purchased the above mentioned property from Alliance }{\insrsid16002141\charrsid13303940 B}{ \insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 uilding Society which is not the registered proprietor of the suit property nor had any authority to sell. A copy of the sale agreement is a}{\insrsid16002141\charrsid13303940 ttached hereto and marked \'93B\'94. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9201877 {\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 The defendant did not deny that she purchased the suit premises from Alliance Building Society. However, against the background that Willy Mudima (the previous registered proprietor of th e suit premises) mortgaged the suit premises to the bank and failed to pay the bank loan, prima facie, it was not a dishonest act for the defendant to purchase the suit premises from the bank. Nevertheless, supposing the bank had no court authority to sel l the suit premises, on the strength of }{\ul\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damani (U) Ltd (supra), }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 dishonesty would only be imputed upon the defendant if at purchase she knew that the bank had no such authority. The question is whether it was proved that at purchase the defendant had such knowledge? The answer is \'93No\'94 . The plaintiff led no such evidence. In the circumstances the plaintiff did not prove }{\insrsid13262273\charrsid13303940 the first allegation of fraud. \par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 The second allegation of fraud was as}{\insrsid13262273\charrsid13303940 follows}{\i\fs26\insrsid13262273\charrsid13303940 \par {\listtext\pard\plain\s15 \insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (b)\tab}}\pard \s15\qj \fi-465\li825\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar \jclisttab\tx825\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls1\adjustright\rin0\lin825\itap0\pararsid13262273 {\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 The defendant fraudulently removed the caveat lodged by the plaintiff from the Certificate of title without any competent court order or giving her the required}{\insrsid13262273\charrsid13303940 notice of intention to do so. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13262273 {\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 It is true, Opio Robert }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 (PW5)}{ \i\fs26\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 testified that the caveat was removed on 27}{\super\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 th}{\fs16\insrsid13262273\charrsid13303940 }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 November 1997 as a result of the dismissal of the plaintiffs objector proceedings in Civil Suit No GK 57of 1996 Allianc}{\insrsid13262273\charrsid13303940 e Building Society v Willy Mudiim}{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 a. However, Court was not told who initiated that move. Court cannot therefore make assumptions. This is particularly so since the defendant was not a party to the above suit. Secondly, although the caveat was not removed in the usual manner, the fact that the plaintiff lost the objector proceedings in Alliance Building Society v Willy Mudiima surely meant that there was no good r eason why that caveat had to remain. All in all, it was not proved that the defendant was the one who removed the caveat in question from the Certificate of title. It was also not proved that such an act was a dishonest act in the circumstances of this ca se. The second allegation of fraud was therefore not proved. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9201877 {\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 The third alleg}{\insrsid13262273\charrsid13303940 ation of fraud was as follows:

\par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 (c) The defendant fraudulently and erroneously issued an order in Civil Suit No. GK of 1996 Alliance Building Society v Willy Mudiima to remove the caveat yet it had nothing to do with the removal}{ \insrsid13262273\charrsid13303940 of the caveat. \par The }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 ord}{\insrsid10683945\charrsid13303940 er in respect of Civil Suit No. }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 GK }{\fs26\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 57}{\i\fs26\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 }{ \insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 of 1996 Alliance Building Society v \line Willy Mudima that was used to remove the caveat in question was an order of court. An individual outside court set up did not issue it. It is therefore wrong and misleading to attribute its issuance to the defendant. For that reason the third alleg}{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 ation of fraud cannot succeed. \par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 Since the 4}{\super\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 th}{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 , 5}{\super\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 th}{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 , }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 6}{ \super\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 th}{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 ,}{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 }{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 7}{\super\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 th}{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 }{ \insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 and }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 8}{\super\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 th}{\b\fs18\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 allegations of fraud involve the bank\rquote s lawyers and the court brokers, Court has found it convenient to deal with them together. However, before Court discusses them it is important to lay t}{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 hem out. They read as follows: \par The fourth allegation: \par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 (d) The transfer to the defendant dated }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 5.}{\i\fs26\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 8.}{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 }{ \insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 97 was signed by one Lawrence Lugemwa t/a Kyeng}{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 era Court Bailiffs as Vendor/reg}{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 istered proprietor yet he did not have the authority to sell nor powers of}{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 attorney. A copy of the transfe}{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 r is a}{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 ttached hereto and marked \'93D\'94 . \par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 The fifth allegation: \par (e) The said Lawrence Lugemwa had no warrant of attachment or order from court to sell the suit property. A copy of the warrant issued by court in 1994 which was stayed as regards the above property is a}{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 ttached hereto and marked \'93E\'94. \par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 The sixth allegation: }{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 \par (f) T}{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 he said transfer of 5. 8. 97 wa}{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 s not properly executed. \par The seventh allegation: \par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 (g) The transfer was in contradiction with the consent to transfer as regards the Vendor. A copy of the consent is a}{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 ttached hereto and marked \'93F\'94. \par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 The eighth allegation: }{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 \par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 (h) Whereas the defendant purchased the said suit property from Alliance Building Society the transfer was executed }{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 by Lawrence Lugemwa as vendor. \par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 Assuming the acts constituted under the above allegations were dishonest acts (amounting to fraud), can Cour t say that the plaintiff proved that the defendant committed those acts or that she was aware of their commission when she bought the suit premises and decided to take advantage of the situation? Court thinks that it cannot say so. It is clear from the ev idence on record that Lugemwa the Court Bailiff directly committed the above dishonest acts; and perhaps hand in hand with him in that mess was the bank\rquote s lawyer (Nagemi) who apparently controlled the sale of the suit premises. Further to that, it was not proved that the }{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 defendant had}{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 knowledge or those dishonest acts at the time she bought the suit premises. In view of the foregoing, the }{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 4}{\super\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 th}{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 , }{ \insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 5}{\super\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 th}{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 ,}{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 6}{\super\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 th}{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 ,}{ \insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 }{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 7}{\super\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 th}{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 and 8}{\super\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 th}{ \fs18\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 allegations of fraud were not proved against the defendant. (See }{\ul\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd-supra-) }{ \insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 That means that the defendant did not buy the suit premises fraudulently. The first issue is there}{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 fore answered in the negative. \par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 With regard to the second issue, in determining whether the defendant was a bona fide purchaser Court will pose the same}{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 question}{\b\i\fs16\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 }{ \insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 the C}{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 hief}{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 Justice}{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 (Mr. Justice. Wambuzi}{ \insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 )}{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 posed when he was faced with a similar situation in }{\ul\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 David Sejjaaka Nalima v Rebecca Musoke Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1985. }{ \insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 That question is as follows. Did the defendant honestly intend to purchase the suit premises and did not intend to acquire it wrongfully? A consideration of the account (that was earlier on narrated in this judgment) of how the defendant acquired the suit premises does not, in Court\rquote s view, suggest the opposite. Rather, it confirms that the defendant honestly intended to purchase the suit premises and did not intend t}{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 o acquire it wrongfully. For it i}{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 s clear from the beginning that when the defendant and her husband were alerted by an advertisement that the suit premises was on sale, th ey endeavoured to ascertain the genuineness of the whole matter. Not only did they visit the Court brokers who advertised it, they also went to the bank and verified why the suit }{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 premises were}{ \insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 on sale. Mrs. Mutagamba an officer of that bank then, showed them its title and a court order. Finally, they visited the suit premises with the bank\rquote s lawyer (Nagemi) who assured them that all was well. In Court \rquote s opinion}{\insrsid11168220\charrsid13303940 all this does not portray the defendant as a person wh}{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 o set out to acquire the suit premises disho nestly and wrongfully. Court is therefore satisfied that the defendant was a bona fide purchaser who is protected by section 189 of the RTA. The second issue is therefore answered in the affirmative. \par With regard to the third issue, it follows from the way the above two issues have been answered that Court has no choice but to dismiss this suit wit}{\insrsid11430770\charrsid13303940 h costs; and it is so ordered. \par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 Finally, Court wishes to point out a few things. Firstly, despite the fact that it has made the above decision, it feels quite sor ry for the plaintiff for having lost her Kibanja. Court is of the opinion that she might have fared better if she had sued Willy Mudima with one or two others instead of the defendant. Secondly, Court would like to thank both }{ \insrsid11430770\charrsid13303940 counsels}{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 for the well researche}{\insrsid11430770\charrsid13303940 d submissions they put in. }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 Those submissions were of tremendous}{ \insrsid11430770\charrsid13303940 benefit to court. \par }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 \line }{\b\fs8\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 S \line }{\fs26\insrsid11430770\charrsid13303940 E. S LUGAYIZI \par JUDGE}{\fs50\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 \line }{\fs26\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 6- 9- 2 0 0 0 }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 \par }{\fs22\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 6 }{\fs8\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 - }{\fs22\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 9- 2 0 0 0 }{\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9201877 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid8651767\charrsid13303940 \par }}