Lutembe Edward Ntege v Mukiibi Katamba Fred and Commissioner Land Registration (Civil Suit No. 1 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 534 (16 July 2025)


# **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA SITTING AT MPIGI**

## **CIVIL SUIT NO. 001 OF 2023**

#### **LUTEMBE EDWARD NTEGE**

**(Administrator of the estate of the late Sulaimani Ntege)===========PLAINTIFF**

## **VERSUS**

## **1. MUKIIBI KATAMBA FRED**

**2. COMMISSIONER LAND REGISTRATION====================DEFENDANTS**

# **BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE DEEPA VERMA**

## **JUDGEMENT**

The Plaintiff brought this suit in his capacity as the Administrator of the Estate of the Late Sulaimani Ntege against the Defendants jointly for fraudulently dealing with land comprised in Mawokota Block 162 Plot 13 at Mpambire.

The declarations he seeks from this Court are that the suit land forms part of the estate of the late Sulaimani Ntege, the 1st Defendant fraudulently dealt with the suit land, an order for cancellation of the 1st Defendant's title, an order directing the 2nd Defendant to register the Plaintiff as proprietor of the suit land, general damages interest and costs.

## **Background**

The Plaintiff is a biological son and administrator of his father's estate, the late Sulaimani Ntege, which position he acquired vide High Court Administration Cause No. 720 of 2015.

The late was the lawful owner/occupier/user and registered proprietor of the whole square mile land comprised in Mawokota Block 162.

Without the Plaintiff's and his sibling's knowledge, unscrupulous persons to wit; Bulazi Damulira and Paulo Nyongwe fraudulently registered themselves as proprietors on the whole square mile land on Block 162 and later sub divided it to form plots 8,9,10,11,12,13, and 14. The plots were later transferred to the names of Bulazi Damulira who claimed ownership of the same.

The Plaintiff sued the administrators of the estate of Bulazi Damulira in Mpigi HCCS No. 92 of 2017 (Lutembe Edward Vs John Baptist Wasswa & 4 others) which suit was determined in the Plaintiff's favor with Court ordering the cancellation of the titles that had been fraudulently created from the Estate's properties, including land comprised in Mawokota Block 162 plot 13 (the suit land) currently in the 1st Defendant's names.

Although the 1st defendant occupied the neighboring land and was fully aware that the land formed part of the estate of the late Sulaimani Ntege, he never raised any ownership claims against plaintiff's relatives who were in actual possession of the suit land. The Plaintiff lodged a caveat on the suit land vide instrument No. MPI-00024146.

The Plaintiff alleges that; that the 1st Defendant connived with Bulazi Ddamulira and his accomplices to transfer the suit land into his name well knowing that the same formed part of the late Ntege Sulaimani's estate, that he failed to undertake due diligence to determine the plaintiff and his occupants interest in suit land, that he transferred the suit land into his name in an attempt to defeat the unregistered interests of the beneficiaries of the estate of the late Sulaimani Ntege, that he acquired the suit land from persons that have never possessed the same yet he was fully aware of those in possession thereof, that he ignored permanent structures such as gardens, grave yards that the family put on the suit land over the years, that he has never asked for ground rent (Busulu) from the Plaintiff and his other family members occupying the suit land in a bid to keep his registration a secret.

The 1st Defendant neither filed a Written Statement of Defence nor made any appearance in Court despite being served through substituted service in the Daily Monitor Newspapers on 23rd May 2023 as evidenced by an affidavit of service sworn by Bakwanya Emilly, a certified process server, on 20th November 2023 and filed in this Court on the same date.

The Plaintiff led evidence through PW1(the Plaintiff) and PW2. The Plaintiff's counsel filed written submissions as directed by court.

The 2nd Defendant filed a Written Statement of Defence to the effect that he is an official of Government charged with the Registration of Land and he maintains the sanctity of the Register but above all that in performance of his duties he relies on documents adduced before him and that all transactions entered and made in respect of the suit land were on the basis of documents presented and deemed to be authentic. The 2nd Defendant informed court that they did not have intentions of filing any documents or leading evidence and contends that since no liability of any nature has been attributed to him, he should be absolved and discharged from the active conduct of the suit and await Court's final pronouncement.

#### **Representation**

The Plaintiff was represented by Counsel Nalunkuuma Esther, the 1st Defendant was never represented and the 2nd Defendant was represented by Counsel Hilary Arinaitwe holding brief for Counsel Godwin Atusasira

#### **Issues for Determination**

- 1. Whether the suit land forms part of the estate of the late Sulaimani Ntege? - 2. Whether the 1st Defendant fraudulently transferred the suit land into his names? - 3. Whether the 1st Defendant is a trespasser on the suit land? - 4. What remedies are available to the parties?

## **Resolution of issues and Decision of Court**

**1. Whether the suit land forms part of the estate of the late Suleimani Ntege?**

The evidence on Court record shows that the suit land is comprised in Mawokota Block 162 plot 13 land at Mpambire and the said was registered in the names of the late Sulaimani Ntege. This fact was confirmed by PW1 in paragraph 3 of his witness statement which was not disputed by any of the Defendants. The late Suleimani Ntege's registration as the proprietor of the entire square mile of land in Mawokota Block 162 on the Blue

Page establishes a critical foundation for the Plaintiff's claim as the administrator of the estate, reinforcing the legal basis for asserting ownership over Plot 13.

Paragraph 5 of PW1's witness statement establishes that Bulazi Damulira and Paul Nyongwe fraudulently registered themselves as proprietors on Block 162 which they subdivided into several plots- 8,9,10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 which they later transferred to Bulazi Damulira. Paragraph 7 of PW1's statements explains how he applied for and was granted Letters of Administration vide High Court administration cause no. 720 of 2015 which he used to sue the administrators of the estate of Bulazi Damulira in Mpigi HCCS No. 92 of 2017. Court entered Judgement in his favour declaring Sulaimani Ntege as the rightful owner of and comprised in land Comprised in Mawokota Block 162 plots 8-14 at Mpambire. Court further ordered the cancellation of the names of Damulira and Paul Nyongwe from the Blue page and of all plots 8-14 that had been created thereon.

This Judgement has to date neither been appealed nor challenged by the Defendant, making it binding to this Court as well.

PW1 in Paragraphs 10 and 11 of his witness statement avers that they managed to cancel plots-8-14 but discovered that plot 13 was registered in the names of the 1st Defendant and upon that discovery he lodged a caveat thereon vide instrument No. MPI-00024146 to protect the Estate's interest.

During cross examination by counsel for the 2nd Defendant, PW1 testified that he filed this suit against the 1st Defendant because he could not enforce the Court orders from the above judgment against the 1st Defendant since he wasn't a party to the said suit. He further added that they are in possession of the suit land and want the 2nd Defendant to cancel the title of the suit land.


Plaintiff submits that there is no evidence or basis on which the 1st Defendant could have been registered on the suit land comprised in Block 162 plot 13 and if it was then it was as a result of Bulazi Damulira and Paul Nyongwe fraudulent actions. This evidence is uncontroverted, strengthening the Plaintiff's case.

The 2nd Defendant did not lead any evidence nor challenge the Plaintiff evidence but maintained his earlier position of maintaining the sanctity of the Register and the fact that all transactions entered are based on documents presented and deemed to be authentic.

This Court conducted a Locus visit on 16th May 2025 during which the parameters of the suit land were identified and it was confirmed that the Plaintiff is in possession of the same having occupied it for the last 15 years. The LC1 chairperson informed the Court that the land belonged to the late Suleimani Ntege, that he knows the Plaintiff as the son of the late Ntege and the current owner of the suit land, he only became aware of the 1st Defendant's ownership claims in 2006. This was corroborated by the bibanja holders, who all recognized the Plaintiff as the owner. Court did not find any encroachments on the land. The 1st Defendant was not present during the locus visit nor was he represented. The 2nd Defendant had no objection for the locus to proceed in his absence having been called by Plaintiff Counsel in Court's presence.

These findings provide compelling evidence of the Plaintiff's physical possession and recognition by local stakeholders as the rightful owner, corroborating PW1's testimony and the prior judgment, while the 1st Defendant's absence and lack of recognition undermine any claim to ownership.

The search statement presented as Annexture C and PEX 3 to the Plaintiff's trial bundle, clearly shows among the on-going transactions; that cancellation of the title to reverse ownership for land comprised in Block 162 plot 13 land at Mpambire Mawokota, was submitted on 15th day of October 2019 at 2:06 pm under transaction no. MPI00003944. The 1st Defendant can't claim ownership of an already cancelled certificate of title for the suit land. This documentary evidence confirms an ongoing administrative process to

restore the title to the estate, consistent with the orders in HCCS No. 92 of 2017, further validating the Plaintiff's claim.

In the circumstances, the 1st issue is resolved in the affirmative.

# **2. Whether the 1st Defendant fraudulently transferred the suit land into his names**

Counsel for the Plaintiff relied on *Black's Law Dictionary* (6th Edition) at page 660, which defines fraud as an intentional perversion of the truth to induce another to part with something valuable or surrender a legal right. Fraud involves false representations of fact through words, conduct, or concealment intended to deceive and cause injury to another.

The Plaintiff pleaded the following particulars of fraud under paragraph 4(a) of the plaint:

- i. The 1st Defendant connived with Bulazi Damulira and his accomplices to transfer the suit land into his name, knowing it formed part of the estate of the late Sulaimani Ntege. - ii. The 1st Defendant failed to conduct due diligence to ascertain the interests of the occupants, namely the Plaintiff and his relatives. - iii. The 1st Defendant transferred the suit land into his name to defeat the unregistered interests of the beneficiaries of the late Sulaimani Ntege's estate. - iv. The 1st Defendant acquired the suit land from persons who never possessed it, despite being aware of those in possession. - v. The 1st Defendant disregarded permanent structures, such as gardens and graveyards, established by the Plaintiff's family on the suit land.

vi. The 1st Defendant never demanded ground rent (*Busulu*) from the Plaintiff or his family, indicating an intent to conceal his registration.

During cross examination by counsel for the 2nd Defendant, PW1 testified that Bulazi Damulira was his paternal uncle and Paulo Nyongwe was his son. He further testified that they fraudulently registered on his land when he was still young and that is why he sued the administrators of the estate of Bulazi Damulira in Mpigi HCCS No. 92 of 2017; (Lutembe Edward Vs John Baptist Wasswa & 4 others). The court ruled in the Plaintiff's favor, ordering the cancellation of titles fraudulently created from the estate of the late Sulaimani Ntege, including the title for Mawokota Block 162 Plot 13, the suit land, now registered in the 1st Defendant's name.

The case of *Kampala Bottlers Ltd v. Damanico (U) Ltd SCCA No. 22 of 1992* establishes that fraud must be attributable to the transferee, either directly or by implication, meaning the transferee must have committed a fraudulent act or knowingly benefited from another's fraud. Similarly, *Halsbury's Laws of England (Vol. 16, Paragraph 666, page 618)* defines fraud in an equitable context as an unconscionable use of power, encompassing victimization through active extortion or passive acceptance of a benefit under unconscionable circumstances. Courts of equity intervene to protect parties unable to safeguard their interests.

From the facts before this court, there is glaring evidence of fraud by 1st Defendant who occupies the neighboring land as per PW1's testimony, the former knew and was well aware that the land belonged to the late Sulaimani Ntege and that was currently occupied and in the possession of the Plaintiff and his relatives.

The Plaintiff under the particulars of fraud in the plaint clearly states that the 1st Defendant has never openly come out to claim ownership of the suit land and that they only discovered that he was registered on the certificate title for the suit land when lodging the cancellation order he had obtained in Mpigi HCCS No. 92 of 2017. The defendant having failed to defend himself can only lead this Court to conclude that he is not a bonafide purchaser but had full knowledge of his predecessor's fraud and benefitted from the same.

It was also evident during the locus visit that the 1st Defendant is unknown to the bibanja holders, LC1 authorities and all neighbors who confirmed to me that the Plaintiff who is also in possession is the owner of the suit land.

I therefore find and conclude that the 1st Defendant fraudulently transferred the suit land into his name. This issue is also resolved in the affirmative.

#### **3. Whether the 1st Defendant is a trespasser on the suit land**

Possessory right violation by the Defendant is the gist of an action for trespass by the Plaintiff. According to the case of **Justine E. M. N. Lutaya Vs Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd Civil Appeal No.11 Of 2002** trespass to land occurs when a person makes an unauthorized entry upon land, and thereby interferes, or portends to interfere, with another person's lawful possession of that land. Needless to say, the tort of trespass to land is committed, not against the land, *but against the person who is in actual or constructive possession of the land*. At common law, the cardinal rule is that only a person in possession of the land has capacity to sue in trespass. *Possession can be physical, where one is physically occupying or utilizing the land, or legal, where one is not necessarily in physical occupation but holds a certificate of title.*

Additionally, as the administrator of the estate of the late Sulaimani Ntege, the Plaintiff holds legal possession of the suit land, which forms part of the estate, as established under Issue 1. The finding of the Court under Issue 1 is that the suit land forms part of the estate of the late Sulaimani Ntege, and there is evidence on record (PEX 3) showing that the certificate of title to the suit land is already in the process of being cancelled and ownership reversed to the former owner, Sulaimani Ntege.

The 1st Defendant, by fraudulently registering himself on the certificate of title for the suit land- Mawokota Block 162 Plot 13, has interfered with the Plaintiff's legal possession. *This fraudulent registration constitutes an act of trespass, as it portends to interfere with the Plaintiff's possessory rights by asserting an unlawful claim to*

*ownership through the title, which undermines the Plaintiff's legal interest in the land.* By registering himself on the title without lawful basis, the 1st Defendant committed an act that interferes with the Plaintiff's possessory rights, as the title is a legal instrument that affects the Plaintiff's ability to fully exercise control over the estate's property. This interference, though not physical, constitutes legal trespass as it challenges the Plaintiff's lawful possession as the administrator of the estate.

It is thus my conclusion that the 1st Defendant is a trespasser on the suit land. This issue is also resolved in the affirmative.

## **4. What remedies are available to the parties?**

Having resolved all the three issues in the affirmative, this Court issues the following declarations and orders:

- 1. The suit land, Mawokota Block 162 Plot 13, Land at Mpambire, forms part of the estate of the late Sulaimani Ntege. - 2. The suit property be registered in the names of the Plaintiff as the Administrator of the Estate of the late Sulaimani Ntege. - 3. The 1st Defendant fraudulently dealt with the suit land. - 4. The 1st Defendant is a trespasser on the suit land. - 5. The registration of the 1st Defendant on the certificate of title for the suit land, Mawokota Block 162 Plot 13, Land at Mpambire, is hereby declared null and void. - 6. The 2nd Defendant, the Commissioner of Land Registration, is hereby ordered to cancel the registration of the 1st Defendant from the certificate of title for the suit land comprised in Mawokota Block 162 Plot 13, Land at Mpambire, and register the estate of the late Sulaimani Ntege, with the Plaintiff as administrator, as the proprietor of the suit land.

- 7. The 2nd Defendant, a government official, acted in that capacity to register the 1st Defendant on the suit land based on documents presented to him as genuine and as such no liability is attributed to him. No damages or costs will be awarded against him. - 8. The Plaintiff is awarded costs for the commitment to advancing the case in the face of the 1st Defendant's non-compliance and inaction that led to the delay in the disposal of this case. The costs to be borne by the Defendant. - 9. Neither the Plaintiff nor their relatives were dispossessed of the suit land by the 1 st Defendant's actions and given the fact that their primary interest was to cancel all certificates of title subdivided from the estate of his father, the late Sulaimani Ntege, and restore ownership, this Court having granted the same, declines to award general damages or interest thereon.

Delivered at Mpigi this 16th day of July 2025.

**Hon. LADY JUSTICE DEEPA VERMA**

**Acting Judge**