Kiyira & 20 Others v Commissioner for Land Registration (Civil Suit 35 of 2018) [2024] UGHC 291 (22 March 2024)

Full Case Text

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT MASAKA HIGH COURT LAND CIVIL SUIT NO. 35 OF 2018

#### **HAJI MOSES KYEYUNE KIYIRA AND 20 OTHERS :::::::::::: PLAINTIFFS** 1.

#### **VERSUS**

#### **REGISTRAR OF TITLES / COMMISSIONER FOR LAND** 1. **REGISTRATION**

- **REGISTRAR OF TITLES, MASAKA ZONAL OFFICE** $2.$ - MARGARET WINFRED NABAYEGO SEKANWAGI $3.$ - TIMOTHY SSEKANWAGI :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 4.

# **Before: HON JUSTICE LAWRENCE TWEYANZE**

# JUDGMENT.

## **Introduction/Background:**

## Plaintiffs' case:

- 1. The $1^{st}$ Plaintiff alleges that on or about the $16^{th}$ day of February 1988, he bought land comprised in Private Mailo Buddu Block 427, Plot 6 at Sangamu, originally Buddu, but currently Lwengo District, from one Lukyamuzi Eriazali (the original land), the then registered proprietor and he got registered on the land that day. That the 1st Plaintiff on $9/12/2005$ , he sold the same land to a one Fulgensio Mungereza from whom he repurchased the same land and subsequently, the 1st Plaintiff got re-registered on $19/6/2009$ . - 2. That after repurchase and the subsequent re-registration, the $1$ st Plaintiff embarked on sub-dividing the original land and sale of some of the subdivided plots to various persons including the other Plaintiffs. He derived 57 titles from the original land thus Plots $19 - 76$ .

Page 1 of 29

$\frac{1}{2}$

- Grace Flavia Nabadda, the 2nd Plaintiff purchased and was registered $3.$ on Plot No. 19, while the 3rd to 16th Plaintiffs purchased and obtained titles for Plots Nos. 21 and 22, and 34, 59, 72, 26, 29, 38, 39, 43, 46, 47, 49, 71 and 40 respectively. That the transactions between the 1st Plaintiff and the rest of the Plaintiffs for the various plots took place between the years of 2009 and 2011. That all the Plaintiffs took immediate occupation and started utilizing their plots upon purchase. - 4. That the 1st Defendant cancelled all the derivative titles plus the residue without informing and hearing all the Plaintiffs on $15/7/2015$ . That the Plaintiffs first learnt of the cancellation in February 2017 when they attended a meeting convened by one Harriet Nakamya, the RDC then of Lwengo District, to introduce the 3rd and 4th Defendants as the owners of the suit property. That the 1st Defendant, had after cancelling all the derivative titles and the residue, amended the Register by restoring a one Robert Ssonko Muwanga on the original title on $10/08/2015$ but the $2nd$ Defendant had, on 05/01/2015, a date earlier than the said date of restoration of Ssonko Muwanga, purportedly transferred the special Certificate of Title from Ssonko to the 3rd and 4th Defendants as Administrators of the Estate of the late Robert Ssonko Muwanga vide Administration Cause No. 358 of 1989. - That following the registration of the $3^{rd}$ and $4^{th}$ Defendants on $5.$ $05/01/2015$ , the 3rd and 4th Defendants got registered as joint proprietors of part of the suit land to the extent of 46.951 hectares as Buddu Block 427, Plot 78 and, on $25/04/2017$ , they transferred a further part of the suit land to the extent of 21.0490 hectares into their joint names as Buddu Block 427, Plot 77. That the 1st and 2nd Defendants did not give the necessary notice to the Plaintiffs nor afforded them their Constitutional right to be heard before the cancellation of their titles. That the public hearing which the 1st Defendant claimed she conducted did not take place and the 3rd Defendant could not legally claim the

Page 2 of 29

Stumkbb

disputed land after 27 years after she had obtained the so-called Letters of Administration in the year 1999, due to limitation.

#### The 1st and 2nd Defendants' Defence.

- 6. That the Office of the Commissioner Land Registration received a complaint from the Administrator of the Estate of the late Robert Ssonko Muwanga to the effect that a one Lukyamuzi Eriazali presented an inauthentic Certificate of Succession for 168 hectares of the Estate of Robert Ssonko Muwanga and transferred the property into his names. That the office of the 1st Defendant was informed by the complainants that upon seeking registration on the suit land as the Administrators of the Estate of the late Robert Ssonko Muwanga on the 21st November 1985, they discovered that the land was already transferred into the names of Lukyamuzi Eriazaali vide Certificate of Succession Number 12358 purported to be issued by the office of the Administrator General. - 7. That the office of the Commissioner Land Registration was further informed by the 3rd and 4th Defendants that at the time of registration of Lukyamuzi Eriazali as proprietor of the suit land, the late Robert Ssonko Muwanga from whom Lukyamuzi Eriazali purported to have succeeded the land from, was still alive and in possession of the land. - 8. That Lukyamuzi Eriazali unlawfully sold the land to the 1st Plaintiff who caused the subdivision of the suit land from Block 427 Plot 6 into plots 19-76 as per the Area Schedule form. That the Commissioner Land Registration wrote a letter dated 18th August 2014 to the Registrar of Titles, Masaka MZO requesting for their input into the investigations about the complaint. That the Registrar of Titles, Masaka MZO wrote a letter dated 2nd September 2014 back to the Commissioner Land Registration having conducted investigations and he concluded that the Certificate of Succession purportedly issued in favour of Eriazali Lukyamuzi was forged.

Page 3 of 29

$\frac{1}{2}$

- 9. That the office of the $1^{st}$ Defendant was informed by the complainants that upon seeking registration on the suit land as the Administrators of the Estate of the late Robert Ssonko Muwanga on the 21st November 1985, they discovered that the land was already transferred into the names of Lukyamuzi Eriazaali vide certificate of Succession Number 12358 purported to be issued by the office of the Administrator General. - 10. That following receipt of the compliant and carrying out investigations, and on the $22^{nd}$ June 2015, the office of the $1^{st}$ and $2^{nd}$ Defendant issued a Notice of Intention to effect changes in the Register to all parties likely to be affected by its decision and the same was duly served on them through their registered mail address inviting them for a public hearing on 13th July 2015 at 8:30 AM. That on the $13th$ day of July, 2015, 21 days after the said Notice was issued, the said public hearing was conducted as scheduled in the presence of the complainants and in the absence of all the Defendants or their representatives nor did they send any objection to the said Notice despite being duly served. - 11. That after the hearing, on the $15^{th}$ July 2015, the office of the $1^{st}$ and $2^{nd}$ Defendant invoked its powers under Section 91 of the Land Act Cap 227 as Amended and canceled the entries of Moses Kyeyune Kiyira and Lukyamuzi Eriazali, and all the subsequent subdivisions together with the Certificate of Titles created and reinstated Block 427 Plot 6 in the names of Robert Ssonko Muwanga as the registered proprietor on the basis that Moses Kyeyune Kiyira and Lukyamuzi Eriazali were erroneously registered onto the Certificate of Title. That a proper procedure as required by law was followed before the cancellation of the Certificate of Title of the suit land.

# The $3^{rd}$ and $4^{th}$ Defendants' Defence.

$\overline{ }$

12. The $3rd$ and $4th$ Defendants contended that the land formerly comprised in Buddu Block 427 Plot 6 currently comprised in Buddu Block 427 Plots 78

Page 4 of 29

Samurabh

and 77 land at Sangamu registered in the names of the $3rd$ and $4th$ Defendants' forms part of the Estate of the late Robert Sonko Muwanga.

- 13. That the suit land was fraudulently transferred into the names of Lukyamuzi Eriazari in 1987, a fictitious person using a Succession Certificate of 1985 and by that time the late Robert Sonko Muwanga was still alive. That before the death of the late Robert Sonko Muwanga, he had lodged a complaint to the office of the Administrator General concerning how his land was transferred into the names of Lukyamuzi Eriazali a fictious person and yet he was still alive and the office of the Administrator General denied issuance of any Certificate of Succession to the said Lukyamuzi Eriazali. They relied on a copy of the letter from the Administrator General denying issuance of the said Certificate of Succession. - 14. That a fictitious Lukyamuzi Eriazali purportedly transferred the suit land into the names of the 1st Plaintiff who subsequently transferred it in the names of Fulgense Mungereza also a fictitious person and later into his names again in 2005 in order to claim that he is a bonafide purchaser for value to create multiple entries to defeat the interests of the Defendants and thus he is guilty of fraud, the purported sale is a forgery. That the 3rd Defendant made inquiries from the office of the Administrator General to ascertain whether any Succession Certificate relied on by the 1st Plaintiff was issued to the said Lukyamuzi Eriazali, however the office of the Administrator General denied issuance of the said Succession Certificate and concluded that it was a forgery. She relied on a letter from the Administrator General. - 15. That the $3^{rd}$ Defendant lodged a complaint to the office of the $1^{st}$ Defendant upon receipt of a letter from the office of the Administrator General denying issuance of a Succession Certificate on which the transfer of the suit land from the names of late Robert Sonko Muwanga was relied upon and requested the 1st Defendant to cancel all the entries on the suit land.

Page 5 of 29

Samulikabb

That pursuant to that complaint the 1st Plaintiff was summoned and advised to come with the people from whom he bought the suit land but ignored to attend the hearing and thus proceeded in his absence. They relied on a copy of the aforementioned summons. That the 1st Plaintiff was given an opportunity to be heard but no mention or defence was made by the 1st Plaintiff the before the cancellation was made for the abovedescribed land. They prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.

### **Representation and hearing.**

16. The Plaintiffs were represented by Counsel Dr. John-Jean Barya of Barya, Byamugisha & Co. Advocates. The 1st and 2nd Defendants are represented by the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development and the 3rd and 4th Defendant were represented by Kaliba Associated Advocates. The Plaintiffs withdrew their claims against the 5th Defendant.

# **Visiting locus.**

17. Court visited the *locus in quo* on the 25th day of October 2023 in the presence of the parties and their Counsel. While at the locus, it was observed that the Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. There was pine and eucalyptus trees belonging to the 2nd Plaintiff; There were cattle grazing, coffee and home of the 3rd Plaintiff and other structures of the Plaintiffs. It was observed that the 3rd and 4th Defendants have never been on the said land and do not have anything on the suit land. It was observed further that DW2 has never been on the suit land but only came to the land in 2005 when she was trying to know where it was.

#### Submissions.

18. Counsel for the Plaintiffs was directed to file and serve submissions by $1^{st}$ November 2023, the Defendants by 13th November 2023 and any rejoinder if any by 17th November 2023. Counsel for the Plaintiffs filed their submissions, none of the Defendants' Counsel filed submissions despite them being served as per the affidavit of service sworn by Tumugabirwe

Page 6 of 29

Summers

Apollo, a process server with Barya, Byamugisha and Co. Advocates. In case the Defendants filed their submissions, the same is not on Court record if any, then it has not been brought to my attention. I have made this judgment without the Defendants' submissions. I have read and appreciated all the pleadings and the submissions of the Plaintiffs. I will refer to the submissions as and when I find it necessary since they majorly repeat the contents of the Pleadings and witness statements save for the cited authorities.

#### **Issues for determination**

- 19. Four issues were proposed for determination by the parties in their Joint Scheduling Memorandum as follows: - - 1. Whether the 1st Defendant cancelled the Plaintiffs' Certificates of Titles lawfully. - 2. Whether the $3^{rd}$ and $4^{th}$ Defendants have any lawful claim to the titles namely Block 427, Plots 6, 77 and 78. - 3. Whether the titles formerly belonging to the Plaintiffs should be restored to them. - 4. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Order 15, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI.71-1 gives this Court the power to amend and strike out issues at any time before passing a decree as it thinks fit as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties. In the interest of adequate discussion of the legal issues at hand in line with the pleadings and for the purposes of this decision, the Court rephrases the issues for determination to reflect as:

- 1. Whether the 1st Defendant cancelled the Plaintiffs' Certificates of Titles lawfully. - 2. Whether the 1st Plaintiff fraudulently acquired and transferred the suit land. - 3. Whether the $1^{st}$ Plaintiff became an adverse possessor and whether the $3rd$ and $4th$ Defendants' claim is time barred. - 4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Page 7 of 29

Spulleringh

Analysis.

#### **Burden and Standard of Proof.**

- 20. In civil proceedings, the burden of proof lies upon he who alleges. **Section** 103 of the Evidence Act provides that; The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. - 21. Accordingly, the burden of proof in civil proceedings normally lies upon the Plaintiff or claimant. The standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities. The law however goes further to classify between a legal burden and an evidential burden. When a Plaintiff has led evidence establishing his/her claim, he/she is said to have executed the legal burden. The evidential burden thus shifts to the Defendant to rebut the Plaintiff's claims (See Asha Ali Suleman and another Versus Nassanga *Aysha Salma and another Civil Suit No. 338 of 2015 (2022.*

Issue 1: Whether the 1st Defendant cancelled the Plaintiffs' Certificates of Titles lawfully.

# Plaintiff's submissions.

22. Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the main defence of the $3rd$ and $4th$ Defendants seems to be fraud on the part of the 1st Plaintiff particularized in paragraph 10 of their joint Written Statement of Defence. That Section 91 of the Land Act Cap. 227, under which the 1st Defendant purported to act in cancelling the entries of the 1st Plaintiff and Lukyamuzi Eriazali, the subdivisions together with the Certificates of Title created and reinstating Block 427 Plot 6, in the names of Robert Ssonko Muwanga as the registered proprietor, gives special powers to the 1st Defendant to, "without referring a matter to" interiliac a Court, to take steps as are necessary to give the effect to the Act whether by endorsement or alteration or cancellation of Certificates of Title, the issue of fresh Certificates of Title or otherwise subject to the Registration of Titles Act 230".

Page 8 of 29

$\sim$

- 23. That Section 91(2) appears to prescribe the instances where such steps may be taken to wit "where a Certificate of Title is, issued in error; contains a wrong description of land or boundaries; contains an entry or endorsement made in error, contains an illegal endorsement; is illegally or wrongfully obtained; or is illegally or wrongfully retained". That before the $1st$ Defendant takes any such step, he/she ought to give a Notice of not less than 21 days of his/her intention to take the appropriate action in the prescribed form to any party likely to be affected by the taking of any such step – Section $91(2)$ Land Act. - 24. That the 1st Defendant must also first conduct a public hearing giving the interested party an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the rules of natural justice but is excepted from applying the Court rules of evidence – Section $91(2)(a)$ . That the Plaintiffs pleaded denial of due process on the part of the 1st and 2nd Defendants in the cancellation of their titles and subsequent restoration of the original Certificate of Title Block 427, Plot 6 in the names of Robert Ssonko Mukasa. - 25. That in effect they jointly pleaded that the cancellations were affected after the 1st Defendant received a complaint from the $3^{rd}$ and $4^{th}$ Defendants, that the land had been fraudulently obtained by one Lukyamuzi Eriazali, the 1st Plaintiff's immediate predecessor in title by him presenting a Certificate of Succession for the 168 Hectares of the Estate of late Robert Ssonko Muwanga and obtaining registration on $14/8/1987$ , whereas, actually, Robert Ssonko Muwanga was alive. - 26. PW1, Hajji Moses Kyeyune Kiyira the 1st Plaintiff, PW2 Grace Flavia Nabadda, 2nd Plaintiff and PW3 George Lubyogo, the 3rd Plaintiff. All denied the due process claimed by the $1^{st}$ and $2^{nd}$ Defendants. They testified that they learnt of the cancellation of their titles after the cancellation when the Resident District Commissioner of Lwengo District then, a one Harriet Nakamya convened a meeting at the locus which the

Page 9 of 29

SMMMARK

Plaintiffs attended and purported to introduce the $3rd$ and $4th$ Defendants as the owners of the land.

- 27. That after the said meeting, PW1 and others established from the Masaka Land office the existence of the Notice of Intention to Amend the Register (Exh. PE11) and the Amendment of the Register (Exh. PE12). They all denied ever receiving the two exhibits. They were all steadfast that the process leading to the cancellation and the cancellation itself were not brought to their attention. They all continue to occupy and utilize their land on the ground although on paper, their titles are cancelled. - 28. That the 1st and 2nd Defendants neither annexed the alleged complaint from the complainants nor the alleged confirmation by the Administrator General to the 1st Defendant regarding the fraud allegedly committed by Lukyamuzi Eriazali. That Janat Nabuuma, the Senior Registrar of Titles, Masaka Lands Zonal Office who testified for the 1st and 2nd Defendants as DW1 did also not adduce the two documents. - 29. That Margaret Winfred Nabayego Sekanwagi the 3rd Defendant who testified for herself and Timothy Sekanwagi, the 4th Defendant as DW2, neither annexed the alleged complaint from them as Administrators of the late Robert Ssonko Mukasa nor mentioned or adduced it in her evidence. That the 3rd and 4th Defendants did also not plead that the 1st Defendant invited them to and they attended a public hearing in terms or that they There was no proof even that they were the were represented. complainants talked about because no Letters of Administration of the Estate of the late Ssonko Muwanga Robert were adduced that Nabayego - $3rd$ Defendant did also not allude to it in evidence. - 30. That from the pleadings of the $1^{st}$ and $2^{nd}$ Defendants it is clear that the subdivisions and the residue title were cancelled on account of the fraud by Lukyamuzi Eliazali as per paragraph 4(d), (e) and (f) of their Joint Written Statement of Defence. According to paragraph 10 of the Joint Written

Page 10 of 29

Swamp Statement of Defence of the $3rd$ and $4th$ Defendants the impugned actions of the $1^{st}$ and $2^{nd}$ Defendant was as a result of the fraud of the $1^{st}$ Plaintiff. In both instances the 1st Defendant purported to act in accordance with Section 91 of the Land Act.

- 31. Counsel for the Plaintiff cited the case of *Hilda Wilson Namusoke and* 3 Others as Administrators of the Estate of the late Nambi Magadalene Scott-vs- Owalla's Home Investment Trust (EA) Ltd and Commissioner *Land Registration SCCA No.15 of 2017* that Section 91 of the Land Act does not confer on the 1st Defendant the power to cancel a Certificate of Title on grounds of fraud, that power being reserved for the appropriate Court. Accordingly, the exercise by the $1^{st}$ Defendant of the power that was not vested in her was unlawful. - 32. That even in the event that such power was vested in the $1^{st}$ Defendant, her exercise of such power based on the fraudulent acquisition of the land by Lukyamuzi Eriazali who had been succeeded in title, according to Exh. PE1 by the 1st Plaintiff (1988); Fulgensio Mungereza (2005) 1st Plaintiff (2009) and subsequently by the Plaintiffs to cancel the Certificates of the respective successors, without attributing fraud to them directly would be unlawful on the principle that they were bonafide purchasers for value without notice of the fraud. - 33. That DW1 in paragraph 10 of her witness statement testified that the 1st and 2nd Defendants issued a Notice to effect changes in the Register to all the parties likely to be affected by its (sic) decision and the same was duly served on them through their registered mail address inviting them for a public hearing. Per paragraph 11 of her witness statement DW1 testified that following the due delivery of the Notice, a public hearing was duly convened in the presence of the complainants and in the absence of the Plaintiffs or their representatives.

SMMMKASh

Page 11 of 29

- 34. That in paragraph 12 she testified that following the hearing, the impugned changes in the Register on the titles were effected. The issuance of the Notice and delivery thereof to the Plaintiffs and the convening of the public hearing were vehemently denied. The denial was the basis of the Plaintiffs' cause of action and the three witnesses sufficiently testified to it. - 35. That in Rosemary Nalubega & Yahaya Walusimbi -Vs- Jackson Kakayira C. A. C. A No. 40 Of 2004, the Court interpreted Section 210A the predecessor Section of Section 202 against Section 35 of the Interpretation Decree 1976 which provides that "where any Act or Decree authorizes or requires any document to be served by post the service shall be deemed to be effected properly by addressing, prepaying and posting by registered post a letter containing the document..........". - 36. That the powers exercisable by the 1st Defendant under Section 91 are subject to the provisions of the Registration of Titles Act. There is no Section in the Land Act similar to Section 202 of the RTA. That that the mandatory notice prescribed under Section 91(2) of the Land Act ought to be subject to Section 202 of the RTA as interpreted vis avis Section 35 of the Interpretation Act, in Rosemary Nalubega (Supra). Like in the Nalubega case, DW1 proved the contrary, that there was in fact no evidence of postage. - 37. That notably there is no evidence that the $3rd$ and $4th$ Defendants are the Administrators of the Estate of the late Robert Ssonko Mukasa. Counsel concluded that the impugned actions of the 1st and 2nd Defendants in cancelling the Plaintiffs' titles without affording them a hearing in accordance with the rules of natural justice were on their own, independent of the lack of power by them to cancel the Certificates of Title on grounds of fraud. Their impugned actions were accordingly unlawful/illegal.

**Consideration of Court.**

Page 12 of 29

MMMKBh

38. The provisions under Section 91 of the Land Act Cap 227 as amended in 2004 are clear, Section 91 (1) of the Act provides as follows:

91(1) "Subject to the Registration of Titles Act, the registrar shall, without referring a matter to a court ... have power to take such steps as are necessary to give effect to this Act, whether by endorsement or alteration or cancellation of certificates of title, the issue *of fresh certificates of title or otherwise.*"

Section 91 (2) of the Land Act as amended provides as follows -

"(2) The Commissioner shall, where a certificate of title or instrument-

- (*a*) *is issued in error;* - (*b*) *contains a wrong description of land or boundaries;* - (c) contains an entry or endorsement made in error; - *(d) contains an illegal endorsement;* - (e) is illegally or wrongfully obtained; or - *(f) is illegally or wrongfully retained;*

give not less than twenty-one days' notice, of the intention to take the appropriate action, in the prescribed form to any party likely to be affected by any decision made under this section".

39. The Amendment Act 2004 introduced two new sub-sections under Section $91$ , to wit;

"(2a) The Commissioner shall conduct a hearing, giving the interested party under sub-section (2) an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the rules of natural justice, but subject to that duty, shall not be bound to comply with the rules of *evidence applicable in a court of law.*

*(2b) Upon making a finding on the matter, the Commissioner shall communicate his* or her decision in writing to the parties, giving the reasons for the decision made, and may call for the duplicate certificate of title or instrument for cancellation, or *correction or delivery to the proper party.*"

Other sub-sections under Section 91 provide for the procedure and other aspects of exercise of these special powers of the Commissioner Land Registration.

Page 13 of 29

Swumph

40. In the present case, the ground relied upon by the Commissioner Land Registration to make the decision and take the action she did is stated in the Amendment Order issued by the Registrar dated 15th July 2015. On the first page of the Order, Ms. Sarah Kulata Basangwa, Commissioner Land Registration, stated as follows:

"*This office received a complaint from the Administrator of the Estate of the late* Robert Ssonko Muwanga to the effect that Lukyamuzi Eriazali presented a Certificate of Succession for 168 hectares of the Estate of Robert Ssonko Muwanga. He was then registered pursuant to this Succession Certificate on 14/8/1987

However, the Administrator General has informed us that the Certificate of Succession is not authentic more so, at the time of his registration Robert Ssonko Muwanga was alive. After the registration of Lukyamuzi Eriazali, he caused a *subdivision of Plot 6 into Plots 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,* 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60; 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 and 76.

*In view of the above, the entry of Lukyamuzi Eriazali on the above land together with all the subsequent transactions ought to be cancelled.*

Notice of intention to effect changes was sent to Moses Kyeyune Kivira and Lukyamuzi Eriazali by registered mail. Unfortunately, I have not received any response from them neither did they attend the public hearing held on 13th July *2015 in respect of the matter."*

41. The Commissioner then went ahead to invoke the powers conferred upon her under Section 91 of the Land Act and made the following orders;

"NOW THEREFORE, by powers conferred upon me under S.91 of the Land Act, *I hereby order that:*

SAMMARADA

Page 14 of 29

- 1. The entry of Moses Kyeyune Kiyira on Plot 23 and 76 registered on 19/6/2009 *under MSK946174 from the Register Book.* - 2. The subdivisions done under Instruments MSK946282, MSK947713 and MSK949452 together with the Certificate of titles created be cancelled and the *original Plot 6 be reinstated forthwith.* - 3. The entry of Lukyamuzi Eriazali on Plot 6 registered under Instrument MSK68226 of 14/8/1987 be cancelled and removed from the Register Book *forthwith.* - 4. Robert Ssonko Muwanga be reinstated as the Registered proprietor of the land comprised in Buddu Block 427 Plot 6." - 42. The foregoing forms the 1st Defendant's decision and the premise upon which the said decision was taken. It is upon that decision that all subsequent actions complained of by the Plaintiffs were taken. As such, it is to that decision and its premises that the Court has to look in order to establish the grounds relied upon by the Commissioner in exercise of the special powers conferred upon her under Section 91 of the Land Act. From a plain and clear reading of the cited decision and the grounds thereof, I see an element of forgery/fraud the major ground for the decision taken by the Commissioner. Reading of the words "the Administrator General has informed us that the Certificate of Succession is not authentic more so, at the time of his registration Robert Ssonko Muwanga was alive." This is my view clearly indicate that the ground upon which the Commissioner relied to make the decision is because there was forgery of the Certificate of Succession which led to the registration of a one Lukyamuzi Eriazali. - 43. An allegation challenging the authenticity of the Certificate of Succession (a document) is a serious one which if proved would amount to a forgery. In my view forgery is one the features of fraud. Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain. Badges of fraud are the "accompanying circumstances tending to excite suspicion and distrust as to the bona fides of the challenged conveyance and which, standing unexplained, may warrant an inference of fraud" (see Evans $v$ . Trude et al. and Champlin et al., 193 Or. 648, 655, 240 P.2d 940 (1952).

Page 15 of 29

Julleauch

- 44. In evaluating if there was existence of fraud leading to the registration, the decision maker must look in the entire circumstances challenging the authenticity of the document presented. Existence of non-authentic documents is forgery which amounts to fraud. - 45. Moreover, under paragraph 10 of the $3^{rd}$ and $4^{th}$ Defendant's Written Statement of Defence, it is clearly stated as follows;

"10. In further reply to paragraphs 5 (i, iii, iv & v), reply to paragraph of the plaint, the Defendant shall aver and contend that a fictitious Eriazali Lukyamuzi purportedly transferred the suit land into the names of the $1st$ plaintiff who subsequently transferred it in the names of Fulgense Mungereza also a fictitious person and later into his names again in 2005 in order to claim that he is a bonafide purchaser for value to create multiple entries to defeat the interests of the Defendants and thus he is guilty of fraud, the purported sale is a mere forgery........ (emphasis *mine*).

- 46. From a reading of the above extract from the 3rd and 4th Defendant's Written Statement of Defence, it is clear that for all intents and purposes, the $3^{rd}$ and $4^{th}$ Defendants' ground that led to the decision of the $1^{st}$ Defendant to cancel the Certificate of Title in the Amendment Order dated 15th July 2015, was majorly premised on fraud which led the Commissioner's investigation and decision and put the matter outside the powers of the Commissioner under Section 91 of the Land Act. Terming the said forgery as an illegality or error in the entry of the said Lukyamuzi Eriazali is only a misapplication of terms. - 47. In Hilda Wilson Namusoke and others versus Owalla's Home Investment Trust E. A. Ltd, SCCA NO. 15 of 2017, The Supreme Court emphasized that the decision of the legislature to omit fraud in Section 91(2) of the Land Act is in line with the well-known judicial principle that allegations of fraud are so serious in nature that they require to be specifically pleaded and strictly proved before a Court of law. And because of its gravity, even in a civil matter, the standard of proof is

Page 16 of 29

SMMMKASh

above a mere balance of probabilities though not necessarily beyond reasonable doubt.

48. Section 91 $(2)$ (e) and $(1)$ of the Land Act provides that a Commissioner can cancel a Certificate of Title if it is illegally or wrongfully obtained or retained. Whereas I have no doubt in my mind that fraud is not authorized by law and is therefore an illegality, fraud is a very specific type of illegality.

"Black's Law Dictionary define illegality and fraud as follows: Illegality is: (*i*) *an act that is not authorized by law.* (ii) The state of not being legally authorized. (iii) The state or condition of being unlawful.

Fraud is the concealment or false representation through a statement or *conduct that injures another who relies on it in acting.*

- 49. Not every illegality is rooted in fraud. Some unauthorized actions may be a result of ignorance of the law. Section 91 (2) would empower the Commissioner to cancel Certificates of Titles issued on the basis of legal errors. Not every illegality is imbued with fraud since fraud is an illegality handled differently from other examples of unauthorized action. (See Hilda Wilson Namusoke and others versus Owalla's Home *Investment Trust E. A. Ltd, Supra).* - 50. Having found that the decision of the Commissioner was substantially premised on forgery which is in turn fraud. There is sufficient evidence on the balance of probabilities that the $1st$ Defendant acted without jurisdiction. I hold that the Commissioner Land Registration did not have powers to cancel the Certificate of Title in the decision made on the 15th July 2015 premised on authenticity/forgery, which as earlier discussed falls under fraud. Therefore, the 1st Defendant unlawfully cancelled the Plaintiffs' Certificates of Titles. - 51. I do not find it necessary to discuss the grounds as to whether or not the Plaintiffs were given Notice nor were not heard, since the above analysis

Page 17 of 29

SMALLAND

found that the Commissioner Land Registration did not have powers to cancel the titles in the first place.

52. Issue 1 is answered in the negative.

## Issue 2: Whether the 1st Plaintiff fraudulently acquired and transferred the said land.

- 53. Under paragraph 4(i) of the Plaint and as well as paragraph 4 of the PW1's Haji Moses Kyeyune Kiyira's witness statement, it is averred that on or about 16th February, 1988 the 1st Plaintiff Moses Kyeyune Kiyira having bought the Private Mailo Land comprised in Block 427, Plot 6 land situate at Sangamu, Buddu but currently Lwengo District became the registered proprietor of the said land. Consequently, that the 1st Plaintiff sold the land to a one Fulgensi Mungyereza on 9th December, 2005. That the 1st Plaintiff subsequently repurchased it and had it re-registered in his names on 19th June, 2009. - 54. In paragraph 5 of the Plaint, it is averred that the 3rd Defendant could not legally claim the disputed land 27 years after she had obtained the so called Letters of Administration in the year 1999. That the 3rd Defendant could not legally claim the disputed land since most of the Plaintiffs were legal proprietors and some were lawful or bonafide occupants by 2015 when their titles and/or occupancy were cancelled. That the $1st$ Plaintiff obtained his land title on 16th February, 1988, which stood unchallenged for over 27 years and he sub-divided and sold to the other Plaintiffs from about 2009 onwards and all these Plaintiffs have never been challenged. - 55. In their defence under paragraphs 8 to 12, the $3rd$ and $4th$ Defendants contended that the land formerly comprised in Buddu Block 427 Plot 6 currently comprised in Buddu Block 427 Plots 78 and 77 land at Sangamu registered in the names of the 3rd and 4th Defendants' forms part of the Estate of the late Robert Sonko Muwanga. This was further stated in the testimony of DW2, the $3rd$ Defendant.

Page 18 of 29

SMMMARA

- 56. That the suit land was fraudulently transferred into the names of Lukyamuzi Eriazali in 1987, a fictitious person using a Succession Certificate of 1985 and by that time the late Robert Sonko Muwanga was still alive. That before the death of the late Robert Sonko Muwanga, he had lodged a complaint to the office of the Administrator General concerning how his land was transferred into the names of Lukyamuzi Eriazali a person and yet he was still alive and the office of the Administrator General denied issuance of any Certificate of Succession to the said Lukyamuzi Eriazali. They relied on a copy of the Letter from Administrator General denying issuance of Certificate of Succession dated 14th November 1988. - 57. That the $3rd$ Defendant made inquiries from the office of the Administrator General to ascertain whether any Succession Certificate relied by the 1st Plaintiff was issued to the said Lukyamuzi Eriazali, however the office of the Administrator General denied issuance of the said Succession Certificate and concluded that it was forgery. She relied on a letter from the administrator general dated 11th August 2014. - 58. That the 3rd Defendant lodged complaint to the office of the 1st Defendant upon receipt of a letter from the office of the Administrator General denying issuance of a Succession Certificate on which the transfer of the suit land from the names of late Robert Sonko Muwanga was relied upon and thus requested the 1st Defendant to cancel of all the entries on the suit land.

## **Analysis of Court.**

- 59. The $3^{rd}$ and $4^{th}$ Defendants derive their claim from being the Administrators of the Estate of the late Robert Sonko Muwanga. They relied on the Letters of Administration vide Administration Cause No. 358 of 1989 obtained from the High Court of Uganda, 1989. - 60. Only the 3rd and 4th Defendants clearly pleaded fraud in their joint Written Statement of Defence against the 1st Plaintiff. They did not file a counter

Page 19 of 29

SMMMM6b.

claim. Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that according to paragraph 10 of the Joint Written Statement of Defence of the 3rd and 4th Defendants, the impugned actions of the $1^{st}$ and $2^{nd}$ Defendant was as a result of the alleged fraud of the 1st Plaintiff.

61. Order 8 rule 7 provides;

"Where any Defendant seeks to rely upon any grounds as supporting a right of *counterclaim, he or she shall, in his or her statement of defence, state specifically that he or she does so by way of counterclaim."*

- 62. It is not mandatory to file a Counter Claim when pleading fraud in defence especially where one pleading fraud is specifically pleaded and proved. Fraud can be raised either in the defence itself or pleaded in a cross action i.e., a Counter-Claim. (See Rwenzori Cotton Ginners Company ltd-v-Kampala District Land Board and others Civil Suit No. 624 of 2016, by Hon. J. *Zeija Flavian).* - 63. Section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act (RTA) is to the effect that a registered proprietor of the land is protected and his title is indefeasible except in cases of fraud. (See the case of Katarikawe vs John Katwiremu & Anor (1977) HCB 187. - 64. In Jackson Fredrick Zaabwe Vs Orient Bank Limited & Others SCCA No. 4 of 2006 relying on the Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn pg 660), the Supreme Court observed that fraud is a false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations or by the concealment of that which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. "Bad faith" and "fraud" are synonymous, and also synonymous of dishonesty, infidelity, faithlessness, perfidy, unfairness, etc. - 65. In Fredrick Zaabwe Vs Orient Bank Limited & Ors, cited supra court held that if a designed object of the transfer be it to cheat a man of a wellknown existing legal right that is fraudulent. In *Kampala Bottlers Ltd* – Vs- Damanico (U) Ltd, (S. C. Civil Appeal NO. 22/92), Supreme Court observed that even if fraud is proved, it must be attributable directly or

Page 20 of 29

SWIMMARD by implication, to the transferee and it vitiates a land title of a Registered Proprietor.

- 66. Section 64 and 176 (c) of the Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 provides for fraud as an exception to indefeasibility of title. - 67. Order 6 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules read together with the case of Kampala Bottlers Ltd -Vs- Damanico (U) Ltd, (S. C. Civil Appeal No. $22/92$ ), state the position that where fraud is pleaded, particulars of the fraud must be given. Also see Okello vs. Uganda National Examinations Board CA No. 12/1987 reported in [1993] II KALR 133 at 135; Lubega vs. Barclays Bank [1990 - 1994] EA 294. - 68. Under paragraph 10 of the 3rd and 4th Written Statement of Defence, it is clearly stated as follows;

"10. In further reply to paragraphs 5 (i, ii, iii, iv & v), of the plaint, the Defendant shall aver and contend that a fictitious Lukyamuzi Eriazali purportedly transferred the suit land into the names of the $1st$ Plaintiff who subsequently transferred it in the names of Fulgense Mungereza also a fictitious person and later into his names again in 2005 in order to claim that he is a bonafide purchaser for value to create multiple entries to defeat the interests of the Defendants and thus he is guilty of *fraud, the purported sale is a mere forgery* $\ldots$ *...*

PARTICULARS OF FRAUD BY THE 1ST PLAINTTIF.

- 1. Transferring the suit land into the names of fictitious persons and then to himself to defeat the interests of the $3^{rd}$ and $4^{th}$ Defendant. - 2. Creating multiple entries in order to claim that he is bonafide purchaser for value. - 3. Failure to carry out due diligence. - 4. Intentionally concealing the identity and particulars of the person's that purportedly witnessed the transfers forms when was selling and buying the suit land." - 69. In my view, the above particulars do not clearly bring out what amounts to fictious persons and how did the 3rd and 4th Defendants come to a conclusion that the transferees were fictious. The cancelled Certificate of

Page 21 of 29

Samurah

Title is clear, that the suit land was first registered in the names of Robert Sonko Muwanga on the 16.1.51, vide Instrument No. 96324, then Lukyamuzi Eriazali on 14.8.87 vide Instrument No. MSK68226, then Moses Kyeyune Kiyira on 16.2.88 vide Instrument Number MSK 69052 and then Fulgence Mungereza on 16.12.2005 vide Instrument Number MSK90975 and again Moses Kyeyune Kiyira on 19.06.2009 vide Instrument Number MSK946174. I am unbale to believe the 3rd and 4th Defendant's averments that the 1st Plaintiff transferred the suit land into the names of fictitious persons and then to himself to defeat the interests of the $3rd$ and $4th$ Defendant as their argument lacks evidence.

- 70. It is a cardinal principle that the threshold for establishing fraud, which is rooted in dishonesty, is a high one such that inadvertent errors short of actual and deliberate dishonesty would not be sufficient to discharge the burden of proof. The reason is that fraud is a serious allegation, and the Court is required to look into all the particulars of fraud, examine all the evidence and apply the strict rules of evidence. Fraud may never be established by doubtful, vague, speculative, or inconclusive evidence. See Christine Hope Kanyima versus Mercantile Credit Bank Limited and *another Misc. Cause No. 0085 of 2021.* - 71. The party accused of such fraud should not only be given the opportunity to plead and advance their defence to such allegations in pleadings, but also be given the opportunity to challenge the allegations by cross examination of any witnesses. In the facts at hand, the $3rd$ and $4th$ Defendants did not lead evidence at trial to prove their allegations of fraud against the 1st Plaintiff. Fraud must clearly be proved against the one accused of it which burden the $3^{rd}$ and $4^{th}$ Defendants failed to dischargeable. - 72. Having found that the 3rd and 4th Defendants have failed to prove fraud against the 1st Plaintiff, it is my finding that the 3rd and 4th Defendants do

Smumb

Page 22 of 29

not have a legitimate claim to the suit land. This issue is answered in the negative.

## Issue 3: Whether the 1st Plaintiff became an adverse possessor and whether the $3^{rd}$ and $4^{th}$ Defendants' claim is time barred.

- 73. I will now discuss the principle of adverse possession and limitation shown. Even if I found that the $3rd$ and $4th$ Defendants have not proved fraud against the 1st Plaintiff. It is pertinent to discuss this issue. - 74. Adverse possession is defined by Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition Centennial Edition (1891-1991) at page 54 to mean:

"A method of acquisition of title to real property by possession for a statutory period *under certain conditions.*"

"Because of the statute of limitations on bringing of actions for recovery of land, title can be acquired to real property by adverse possession. In order to establish title in this manner, there must be proof of non-permissive use which is actual, open, notorious, exclusive and adverse for the statutorily prescribed period."

75. In the case of Jandu vs. Kirpal & A'nor [1975] EA 225 at 323, the court relied on the definition adopted in the case of Bejoy Chundra vs. Kally Posonno [1878] 4 Cal. 327 at p. 329; it was held that;

"By adverse possession I understand to be meant possession by a person holding the land on his own behalf, for on behalf of some person other than the true owner, the true owner having immediate possession. If by this adverse possession the statute is set running, and it continues to run for twelve years, then the title of the owner is extinguished and the person in possession becomes the owner."

76. The law regarding adverse possession is provided for under sections 5, 11(1), 16, 25 and 29 of the Limitation Act and section 78 of the Registration of Titles Act. Section 5 of the (Limitation Act, cap 80) provides for limitation of actions for the recovery of land. It stipulates as follows;

Page 23 of 29

Smumbh

"No action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued to him or her or, if it first accrued to some person through whom he or she claims, to that person."

## 77. Section 11 $(1)$ of the Limitation Act also provides that;

"No right of action to recover land shall be deemed to accrue unless the land is in the possession of some person in whose favour the period of limitation can run (hereafter in this section referred to as "adverse possession" and where under sections 6 to 10, any such right of action is deemed to accrue on a certain date and no person is in adverse possession on that date, the right of action shall not be deemed to accrue until adverse possession is taken of the land."

78. The effect of the expiration of the period prescribed for any person to bring an action to recover land is provided for under Section 16 of the Limitation Act. It provides that;

"Subject to sections 8 and 29 of this Act and subject to the other provisions thereof, at the expiration of the period prescribed by this Act for any person to bring an action to recover land (including a redemption action), the title of that person to the land shall be extinguished."

79. In the Indian case of Indian case of P. T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors vs Revamma and Ors, 2007, AIR (SC) 1753 P. T.

"Modern statutes of limitation operate, as a rule, not only to cut off one's right to bring an action for the recovery of property that has been in the adverse possession of another for a specified time, but also to vest the possessor with title. The intention of such statutes is not to punish one who neglects to assert rights, but to protect those who have maintained the possession of property for the time specified by the *statute under claim of right or color of title.*

80. It can be discerned that the rationale for adverse possession is: (i) that the owner of land is under duty to protect his or her interests in the land; (ii) that the owner of land is not expected to just look on when his or her rights are either infringed or threatened by third parties such as squatters and trespassers occupying his or her land. (iii) that the failure to do so would

Page 24 of 29

$\sim 100$

mean that the owner of the land has abandoned the property to the adverse possessor or has acquiesced to the hostile acts and claims of the person in possession. (See Lutalo Moses versus Ojede Abdallah Bin Cona SCCA NO. 15 of 2019.)

- 81. The general position of the law as provided for in section 59 of The Registration of Titles Act is that a Certificate of Title is conclusive evidence of ownership of land. The exceptions to the principle of indefeasibility of title are stipulated under sections 64, 77, 136 and 176 of the Registration of Titles Act, which essentially relate to fraud or illegality committed in procuring the registration. Otherwise, the registered proprietor's title is immune from attack by adverse claim to the land or interest in respect of which he or she is registered. - 82. Section 78 of The Registration of Titles Act, however, provides yet another exception to the general rule. It recognizes adverse possession or acquisition of title by possession. It provides as follows:

"A person who claims that he or she has acquired a title by possession to land registered under this Act may apply to the registrar for an order vesting the land in him or her for an Estate in fee simple or the other Estateclaimed."

83. The considerations for a successful claim for adverse possession were discussed by the Privy Council's decision in *Chung Ping Kwan and Others* us. Lam Island Development Company Limited (Hong Kong), [(1997) AC $38$ ] in this regard.

"Therefore, to assess a claim of adverse possession, two-pronged enquiry is required: 1. *Application of limitation provision thereby jurisprudentially "willful neglect"* element on part of the owner established. Successful application in this regard distances the title of the land from the paper-owner.

2. Specific Positive intention to dispossess on the part of the adverse possessor effectively shifts the title already distanced from the paper owner, to the adverse possessor. Right thereby accrues in favour of adverse possessor as intent to

$\frac{1}{2}$

Page 25 of 29

dispossess is an express statement of urgency and intention in the upkeep of the property."

- 84. The pre conditions that must be satisfied before the Registrar or Court can declare one to be an adverse possessor in Uganda are the following: - $i.$ Factual possession of the land. There must be physical control of the land in issue. The person in occupation must be dealing with the land as an owner might be expected to, and no one else must be doing the same. - ii. The possession must be for a continuous period of at least 12 years uninterrupted. - iii. Animus possidendi; an intention to possess the land to the exclusion of all others, including the legal owner. - The possession must be 'adverse', i.e. without legal entitlement or iv. without the owner's consent. - The possession must be peaceful, exclusive, open and notorious so as $V$ . to put the owner of the land on notice of the possessor's intention. - vi. The possession must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner. See Lutalo Moses versus Ojede Abdallah Bin Cona SCCA NO. 15 of 2019.) - 85. In the instant case, though the Plaintiffs based their claim on ownership of the suit land arising from the purported ownership of the 1st Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs sought cancellation of title that was restored to Robert Sonko Muwanga in the first place and the subsequent registration of the 3rd and $4th$ Defendants. On the otherhand, the $3rd$ and $4th$ Defendants' defence was based on forgery/fraud against the 1st Plaintiff in how he got registered as the owner of the suit land, the particulars of which are indicated in paragraph 10 of the 3rd and 4th joint Written Statement of Defence. - 86. The $\mathfrak{Z}^{\mathrm{rd}}$ and $4^{th}$ Defendant's pleadings by necessary implication operationalized Sections 5, 11(1), 16, 25 and 29 of the Limitation Act. Even if the 3rd and 4th Defendants had proved fraud against the 1st Plaintiff which

Page 26 of 29

SMMMMABh

they failed prove anyway, their claims would be barred by limitation period.

## 87. Section 25 of the Limitation Act which provides that:

- *a. Where in the case of an action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by* this act, either the action is based upon the fraud of the Defendant or his or her agent or of any person through whom he or she claims or his or her agent. - b. the right of action is concealed by fraud of any such person as is mentioned in *paragraph (a) of this Section or* - c. the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake, the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the Plaintiff has discovered the fraud or the mistake or could with reasonable diligence have discovered." - 88. In George William Joga v Ashy Musoke Bagirawo [1977] HCB 68 the court held that according to Section 26 (now 25) of the Limitation Act, the limitation period begins to run after the discovery of fraud and since fraud was discovered in 1969, the case was not time barred. See also: David Mukisa & another vs Christine Nakalanzi & Another [1993] V KALR 5. - 89. The $3^{rd}$ and $4^{th}$ Defendants are the current registered proprietors on the suit land. They are successors in title since they derive this title after cancellation of the 1st Plaintiff's title and upon the title being restored to the names of the late former owner Robert Sonko Muwanga vide Administration Cause No. 358 of 1989 and subsequently the names of the $3rd$ and $4th$ Defendants in their capacity as Administrators and finally now in their own names not as Administrators. - 90. It can therefore, be correctly stated that the time begun to run on the $14^{\rm th}$ November, 1988, when the late Robert Sonko discovered the alleged forgery of the said transfer of land from his names premised on the letter from the Administrator General denying issuance of Certificate of

Page 27 of 29

SMIMMER

Succession and resumed later on when the 3rd and 4th Defendants obtained Letters of Administration as successors in title vide Administration Cause No. 358 of 1989.

- 91. The title of the adverse possessor rests on the infirmity/ failure of the right of others to eject him (See Shaw vs. Garbutt (1996) 7 BRP, 14816, *page14832*). The $3^{rd}$ and $4^{th}$ Defendant's failure to take action, failure to seek cancellation of the 1st Plaintiff's registration and to eject him and his successors in title within the prescribed 12 years crystallized the 1st Plaintiff's occupation and his successors in title since the $3rd$ and $4th$ Defendants' only sought the intervention of the Commissioner Land Registration to cancel the 1st Plaintiff's Certificate of Title in 2014. - 92. Sections 5, 11(1), 16, 25 and 29 of Limitation Act (supra) not only cut off the $3rd$ and $4th$ Defendants as the successors in title right to lodge a complaint to the Commissioner Land Registration seeking cancel the registration of the 1st Plaintiff premised on forgery but also cut off their right to plead the same in Court against the 1st Plaintiff for over twelve years, and those who derived title under him as possessors. - 93. The law does not make it a necessity for the claim for adverse possession to be by one person for the whole of the period as long as the period of possession is continuous, the periods of possession of successive squatters may be aggregated. Clearly, the Plaintiff is a successor in title to the said Lukyamuzi Eriazali, and the same having been transferred to a one Fulgencioo Mungereza in 2005 and later back to the 1st Plaintiff's name in 2009. The $1^{st}$ Plaintiff takes benefit of the period he got registered and took possession in 1988 up to 2005 when he sold it to Fulgencio Mungereza who was his successor in title and then later back to the $1st$ Plaintiff as a successor in title. - 94. I find that from the evidence on record a claim of adverse possession has been made out by the $1^{st}$ Plaintiff. Even if the $3^{rd}$ and $4^{th}$ Defendant

$\frac{1}{2}$

Page 28 of 29

had proved fraud against the 1st Plaintiff, which they failed to prove anyway as discussed in issue 2 above, they never took further steps to cancel the said title despite the late Robert Sonko having been informed of the purported forged Succession Certificate of 1985, and the subsequent Letters of Administration in 1988. The $3^{rd}$ and $4^{th}$ Defendant's claim would be barred by the limitation period.

## **Issue No. 4: Remedies available.**

- 95. Judgment is entered for the Plaintiffs against the Defendants with the following orders: - That subsequent joint registration of the $3^{rd}$ and $4^{th}$ Defendants on Block $i.$ 427, Plot 78 and on 11" August, 2016 and further joint registration of the two Defendants on Block 427, Plot 77 on April, 2017 be cancelled. - ii. The cancellation of all the Plaintiffs' titles be reversed and all their titles on Block 427, Plots 19 - 76 be restored on the Mailo Land Register in Masaka Zone Office. - iii. A permanent injunction against all the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiffs' interest in the land. - iv. The Plaintiffs are to incur the expenses of re-registration. - The Plaintiffs are awarded costs of the suit. $V$ .

From the conclusions I have arrived at on the foregoing issues, there is not sufficient material for the award of general damages.

Judgment is accordingly awarded in the above terms.

Judgment signed and delivered by email this 22nd day of March, 2024

mumm

LAWRENCE TWEYANZE JUDGE. $22^{nd}$ March, 2024.

Page 29 of 29