Mugasa Grace Adyeeri v Commissioner Land Registration (Civil Appeal No. 710 of 2024) [2025] UGCA 240 (21 July 2025)

Full Case Text

# 5 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

# IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

# (CORAM: BYARUHANGA. RUGYEMA, NAMBAYO 6I ALIBATEESE JJA)

### CIVIL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2024

## (Arising from MC No.257 of 2023)

1O MUGASA GRACE ADYEERI ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPELLANT

### VERSUS

COMMISSIONER LAND REGISTRATION :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT

(Appeal from the decision of the High Court of lJganda at Kampala Civil Division, before Wamala, J, delivered on the llh day of July 2024 in High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 257 of 2023)

# JUDGMENT OF NAMBAYO ESTA, JA

### lntroduction

This appeal arises from the ruling and orders of High Court Civil Division, MC No.257 zo of 2023 delivered by Wamala, J, on the 19th )uly, 2024.

### Background

The background to this case is that the Appellant purchased land comprised in Bulemezi Block 56 plot 253 land at Jjanda, from the late Muhamudu Mayombwe.

Before the Appellant obtained registration on the title, a one Ssebyatika Badiru had 25 lodged a caveat which the Appellant vacated.

After the Appellant's vacation of the caveat, Ssebyatika Badiru and Nakibirango Edith, being Administrators of the estate of the late Nampiima Lazia, (who was biological

Page 1 of 17

mother to the late Muhamudu Mayombwe), through M/S Wante & Co Advocates, filed a complaint with the Respondent seeking for cancellation of Muhamudu Mayombwe's names from the certificate of title comprised in Bulemezi Block 64 Plot 529, land at Kalere on grounds that he, Muhamudu Mayombwe, before obtaining letters of Administration, and without the consent of the family/clan members, fraudulently took the Certificate of title from the person who had custody and transferred the land into his names.

35 The Respondent conducted a public hearing and cancelled Muhamudu Mayombwe's names from the title under S. 91(2) [Now S. 8B(2)] of the Land Act.

The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the Respondent's action filed for judicial review seeking for orders of Certiorari and Prohibition to quash the Respondent's decision/action and to prohibit the Respondent from taking any action against the interests of the Appellant/Applicant on land comprised in Bulemezi Block 56 plot 263 land at Jjanda and costs of the suit. The Appellant/Applicant's claim was that the Respondent had no powers to entertain the matter as fraud was alleged against Muhamudu Mayombwe and as such, the Respondent's decision to cancel the Appellant's title was illegal, irrational and procedurally improper. The trial Judge dismissed the application, hence this appeal.

The Appellant now seeks for orders of this court that;

- (a) This appeal be allowed - (b) The decision of the High Court be reversed - (c) The Appellant be granted costs of this appeal and in the lower court.

#### 50 The grounds of Appeal are that:

1. The learned trial Judge erred in law and fact by failing to hold that the Respondent's cancellation of the entry on the certificate of title was based on fraud and therefore lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the matter

- 2. The learned trial Judge erred in law and fact when he held that the Respondent had given a reason for the cancellation of the entry on the certificate of title - 3. The learned trial Judge erred in law and fact when he held that no instance of irrationality or unreasonableness had been established by the Applicant against the Respondent - 60 4. The learned trial Judge erred in law and fact when he held that the Appellant was not entitled to the remedies sought'

### Representation

On appeal, Mr. Lumweno Nasser Hatimi of Lumweno & Co Advocates, Kampala appeared for the Appellant, while Mr. Babu Hakim, Registrar of the Respondent Commission was for the Respondent.

Written submissions were filed for both parties.

## Duty of this court as a 1'r Appellate Court.

This being a first appeal, this court is under a duty to re-evaluate and assess the evidence and make its own conclusions. lt must, however, keep at the back of its mind that a trial court, unlike the appellate court, had the advantage of observing the demeanour of the witnesses and hearing their evidence first hand.

# ln Mbogo and Another -v-. Shah [1958] EA 93, it was stated that;

'... this Court will not interfere with the exercise of judicral discretion by an inferior court unless it is satisfied that its decisron is c/early wrong because tt has misdirected itse/f or because it has acted on matters on which it shou/d not have acted or because it fai/ed to take into consideration matters which it should have taken into consideration, and in doing sq arrived at a wrong conc/usion. "

Page 3 of u

ln Pandya -v-R (1957) EA 336 the court noted as follows;

,,The Court of Appeal has to bear in mind that its duty rs to re-hear the case, and the court must reconsider the materials before the )udge with such other materials as it may have decided to admit. The court must then make up its mind, not disregarding the iudgement appea/ed from, but carefully weighing and considering it' and not shrinking from over ruhng it if on full consideration the court comes to the fu// conclusion that the judgement is wrong'"

The principles stated in the above cases are applicable in first appeals and therefore, this court will be guided by the same principles in addressing this appeal.

90 Grounds of Appeal

Ground 1: The learned trial Judge erred in law and fact by failing to hold that the Respondent's cancellation of the entry on the certificate of title was based on fraud and therefore lacked the jurisdiction to entertain this matter.

### Appellant's submissions

to entertain the matter.

- 95 100 Counsel for the Appellant submitted that it was erroneous for the learned trial Judge to find that fraud occurred outside the land office and yet the complaint was in regard to fraudulent acquisition and transfer of the land title, with the transfer taking place at the office of the Respondent. He referred this court to the complaint which is on page 9, lines 21-24 of the record of appeal and explained that since the allegation was fraudulently obtaining and transferring title, the Respondent had no jurisdiction - That even if the alleged fraud had occurred outside the land office, once it was brought to the attention of the Respondent, he would not have jurisdiction to entertain the matter - counsel pointed out that the learned trial Judge observed in his ruling at page 53 of the record of appeal, lines 1 5-17, that there was nothing either in the complaint or by 105

Page 4 of 17

way of material placed before the Respondent showing that the transfer was occasioned by fraud, and yet the allegation of fraud in the complaint is clearly stated and glaring. He referred court to paragraph 4 of the letter of complaint, (on page 9 of the record of Appeal, lines 21-24), where it is alleged that Mayombwe Muhamudu, without the consent of his sister Nansubuga, fraudulently took the certificate of title from the person who had custody and transferred the same into his name as sole proprietor.

He prayed that court answers this ground in the affirmative.

#### 115 Respondent's submissions

1,25

ln reply, counsel for the Respondent submitted that this ground of appeal was intentionally wrongly framed by counsel for the Appellant/Applicant to confuse this court into believing that the Respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. That the complaint was filed by the Administrators of the Estate of the late Nampiima Lazia against Mayombwe Muhamudu for illegally procuring his registration on the Certificates of title of land comprised in Bulemezi Block 55 Plot 263 land at Jjanda and Bulemezi Block 64 Plot 529 land at Kalere without letters of

administration or authorization from the Administrators of the estate-

He relied on the definitions of illegality and fraud in Black's Law Dictionary, 9th edition where illegality is defined as:

> ,an act not authorized by law or the state of not being lega/ly authonzed or being unlawful' anl

Fraud is defined as:

"The concea/ment or false representatton through a statement or conduct that iryures another who relies on rt in acting".

That in the instant case, the complaint that brought about the cancellation of the entry of the late Mayombwe Muhamudu's name from the certificate of title on Bulemezi Btock 55, plot 253 land at Jjanda and Block 641, plot 529 land at Kalere

Page 5 of 17

135 140 was solely premised on the unlawful transfer of the property into his (Mayombwe's) names without letters of administration. counsel relied on section 134 (1) RTA and the authority of Hilder Wilson Namusoke and 3 Ors -v- Owalla's Home lnvestment Trust & Anor, SCCA No. 15 of 2017 and explained that following a formal inquiry, the Registrar was satisfied that Mayombwe had no letters of Administration to warrant his entry or registration as proprietor to the suit land which was contrary to the law. That such unauthorized and unlawful act amounts to an illegality and not fraud.

He submitted that the legal error in registration of Mayombwe Muhamudu as proprietor of the suit land did not constitute fraud.

### Rejoinder

t45 In rejoinder, Counsel for the Appellant submitted that in the instant case, the complaint addressed to the Registrar by the complainants clearly stated that Mayombwe Muhamudu acted without consent of the family/clan members, that he fraudulently took the certificate of title from the person who had custody and transferred it into his names. That the statement entirely faults the transferee for having acted fraudulently. lt does not point to any mistake or error on the part of the Registrar. That the Registrar who effected the registration merely acted in belief that

150 the instrument of transfer submitted was genuine.

counsel emphasized that in view of the above, the learned trial judge erred in law and fact when he failed to hold that the complaint was based on fraud and he arrived at a wrong decision that the Commissioner had powers to entertain the matter.

#### 155 Analysis

S. 91 (Now S. 88) of the Land Act provides for special powers of a Registrar of Titles and states as follows:

(1) Subject to the Registration of Titles Act the Registrar of titles shall without referring a matter to a court or a distnct land tribunal have power to take such

Page 6 of 17

160 steps as are necessary to give effect to this Act whether by endorsement or a/teration or cancellation of certificates of title the issue of fresh certificates of title or otherwise

Under S. 91 (2), [Now S. 88(2)] of the Land Act, it is provided that;

"The Registrar of Tit/es shall where a ceftifrcate of tttle or instrument-

(a) is issued in erroc

1,70

(b) contains a wrong descriptton of land or boundariet'

(d) contains an i//ega/ endorsement'

(e) is il/egal/y or wrongfu/ly obtained; or

0 b illegally or wrongfully retainefl'

give not /ess than twenty - one days' notice of the intention to take the appropriate actioa tn the prescribed form to any party /ikely to be affected by any decision made under this section.

ln this case, it is the Appellant's contention that the Commissioner did not have powers to handle the matter as the complaint against Muhamudu Mayombwe concerned fraud. The relevant part of the complaint to the Commissioner is reproduced herein below: L75

180 185 " 2Ch lull+ 2023 The Commissioner Land Registration Ministry of Lands, Housing & Urban Development, Kampala Dear Sir/Madam REQUEST FOR RECTIFrcATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TITIE TO THE IAND COMPRISED IN BULEMEZI BIOCK 64 PLOT 529 LAND AT KAIERE We act for and on behalf of SEBYAflKA BADRU and NAKIBIRANGO EDITH (our c/ients) on whose instructions we write to you as follows: our clients are the Administrators of the estate of the late NAMPIIMA IAZIA who died on 2?d April 1990. Our clients accordingly obtained letters of Page 7 of 17 190

Administration on 2. Vd May, 2023 vide HCT-|7-FD-AC-0147-2023. (A copy ot the deceased's death certificate and letters of Admintstration are attached hereto).

- The late Nampiima Lazia was suruived by two children namely,' Mayombwe Muhamudu and Nansubuga Rashida. Prior to her death the deceased owned the abovementtoned land comprised rn Bulemezi Block 54 Plot 529 at Kalere measuring approximate/y 5 acres. 195 - 200 According to the deceased's wishes during her lifetime four acres of the abovementioned land was glven to her son MAYOMBWE MUHAMUDU and one acre was given to the c/an members (mpewo clan) to be used as the fami/y graveyard. Howevea MAYOMBWE MUHAMUDU, before obtaininq letters of Administration, and without the consent of the fami/y/clan member, 205 fraudulent/y took the certificate of title from the Person who had custody of it and transferred the same into his names (underlined for emphasis).

Mayombwe later sold four out of the 5 acres which right/y belonged to him but he never handed over the residue title of one acre to the members of Mpewo clan or to the Administrators of the estate of NAMPIIMA ALAZIA. He left the said certificate of title with hls children sadati serwania and Ali Kryaga but the said chi/dren have stubbornly refused to hand over the tit/e and they claim that that one acre belongs to them and not to the clan.

- 215 We have confirmed from the records at the Land Registry that Mayombwe Muhamudu was reglstered on the land on 2|st April 2009. There is no rndication that his registration was procured as an administrator of the deceased s estate which makes it ilegal and void abinrtio..." - 220

Wante & Co. Advocates"

Page 8 of 17

Fraud, in Black's Law Dictionary, 1 1th Edition, is def ined as;

2 knowing misrepresentatron or knowing concea/ment of a matenal fact made to induce another to act to his or her detriment. A reck/ess mtsrepresentation made without justified be/ief in its truth to induce another person to act"

230 ln the case ol Zaabwe -v- Orient Bank ltd and 5 Others SCCA No. 4 of 2006 Katureebe, JSC (as he then was), noted while citing from the 6th Edition of B/ack's Law Dictionary at page 66A that'

235 240 "Fraud is an intentional peruersion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in re/iance upon it to part with some valuab/e thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by fa/se or mis/eading a/legations, or by concea/ment of that which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his /ega/ injunT. Anything ca/cu/ated to deceive, whether by a single act or combinatlon, or by suppression of truth, or suggestlon of what is false, whether it is by direct fa/sehood or rnnuendo by speech or silence, word of mouth, or look or gesture................ A generic term, embracing a// multrfarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resotted to by one individual to get advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth, and inc/udes a// surprise, trick cunning, dtssemb/ing, and any unfair way by which another is cheated, dtssemb/ing, and any unfair way by which another is cheated. "Bad faith" and "fraud" are synonymout and also synonymous of dishones4t infidelity, faithlessnest perfrdlt unfarrness etc. ..... 245

Page 9 of 17

ln Kampala Eottlers -v-Damanico (U) Ltd SCCA 22 of 1992, Wambuzi CJ (as he then was) noted that;

"... fraud must be attributable to the transferee. / must add here that rt must be attributable either direct/y or by necessary imp/ication. By this I mean the transferee must be gui/ty of some fraudulent act or must have known of such act by somebody else and taken advantage of such act "

It is stated in the complaint from M/s wante & co Advocates addressed to the Registrar that Mayombwe Muhamudu, before obtaining letters of Administration, and without the consent of the family/clan members, fraudulently took the certificate of title from the person who had custody of it and transferred the same into his names.

We see that the alleged fraud is attributed to Mayombwe who is the transferee. Mayombwe is said to have fraudulently obtained the title from the person who had custody without the consent of the family/clan members and without letters of administration, transferred it into his names. This, in my view amounts to fraud. The Registrar acting in response to the fraudulent actions of the fraudster need not to have known that there was fraud prior to his actions.

ln the Zaabwe -v- Orient Bank (supra), fraud is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. In this case, the Registrar acted to his legal injury. I believe this is what the Respondent was trying to cure by cancelling the title on grounds that it was an illegality.

ln the next paragraph in the letter, it is stated that after taking off his 5 acres Mayombwe never handed over the residue title of one acre to the members of Mpewo clan or to the Administrators of the estate of Nampiima Alazia. He left the said certificate of title with his children; Sadati Serwanja and Ali Kiyaga and the children 275 stubbornly refused to hand over the title claiming that the one acre belongs to them

and not to the clan. This confirms that there was an intention to defraud, if what is stated in the complaint is true.

In view of the above, lwould find that the learned trial Judge erred when he held that:

280 285 290 "C/ear/y what the Respondent was concerned with were the activities that had taken p/ace in the /and offtce. Wthout letters of Administration, the said Mayombwe Muhamudu had effected transfer of land from a deceased person's name into his name. Whichever way it was done this constituted an eror on the paft of the Respondent and act of illegality. There was nothing either in the complaint or by way of materia/ p/aced before the Respondent showing that the transfer was occasioned by fraud. What was before the Respondent was that registratton had been done tn contravention of the /aw. The complaint thus fell withrn the domatn of the Respondent and the office had the mandate to cure the same. To my finding, the Respondent exercised power that rs vested in them under the /aw and no ultra vrres exercise of power has been established by the Applicant. Thrs ground of application is therefore not made out and it fai/s. "

295 ln the case of Hilda Wilson Namusoke & 3 others (Administrators of the Estate of Nambi Magdalene Scott -v- Owalla's Home lnvestment Trust E. A (supra)' Ekirikubinza, JSC noted as follows;

> "The Commissioner who may exerctse quasiludicial powers would not have the capacity to hear a matter invo/ving fraud and make findings without calling evidence inc/uding cross-examrnation of the witness a/leging fraud. Consequent/y, the power to cance/ certificates of tit/e where fraud is al/eged is

# vested in the High Court... An aqqrieved partv complaininq of fraud shou/d straqhtaway fi/e a suit for adiudlcation on the issue." (Emphasis is mine).

Iwould, in the circumstances agree that the Respondent's cancellation of the entry on the certificate of title was based on fraud and that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

3os Ground 2, 3 8L 4:

- 2. The learned trial Judge erred in law and fact when he held that the Respondent had given a reason for the cancellation of the entry on the certificate of title. - 3. The learned trial Judge erred in law and fact when he held that no instance of irrationality or unreasonableness had been established by the Applicant against the Respondent. - 4. Whether the learned trial Judge erred in law and fact when he held that the Appellant was not entitled to remedies sought.

## Appellant's submissions

315 Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Respondent's notice of cancellation at page 11 lines 8-16 of the record of Appeal does not give any reason in support of the decision to cancel the names of Mayombwe from the title, which is contrary to S. 91(g) (d) (now s. BB (10) (d)) of the Land Act Cap 236. That the absence of a reason justifying the finding of illegality means that there was no illegality in the first place. counsel explained that the trial judge's finding that since the Appellant had attended

320 the public hearings, she was aware of the proceedings and findings of the Respondent was a misdirection. That it is incumbent upon the Respondent to give reasons in its communication to the Appellant for any decision of cancellation made. That the mere fact that the Appellant attended the proceedings does not take away her right of

Page 12 of 17

325 being given reasons by the Respondent as required under section 91 (B) (d) [Now s. 88 (10) (d)l of the Land Act CaP 236.

### Respondent's submissions

330 33s ln reply, Counsel for the Respondent relying on S.88 (2) of the Land Act explained that the procedure to follow if the Respondent was to cancel a certificate of title includes; conducting a public hearing, affording interested parties an opportunity to be heard, making findings on the matter and communicating his or her decision in writing. That in this case, the Respondent received a formal complaint from the administrators of the estate of the late Nampiima Lazia requesting for cancellation of the names of the late Mayombwe Muhamudu from the register for having unlawfully procured his registration on the certificate of title of the suit land in question without letters of administration.

That all parties were allowed to present their claim and defence. That the Appellant was at all material times aware of the nature of the claim and the subject of the public hearing that calumniated into cancellation of the name of the late Mayombwe Muhamudu from the titles.

- 340 Counsel further submitted that as a practice, the office of the Respondent, upon conclusion of the public hearing, the Commissioner Land Registration delivers his/her decision in a detailed report commonly known as an Amendment order, grving reasons for rectification of the register. - 345 He prayed that this court upholds the finding of the trial Judge that the reason for cancellation of the name of the Late Muhamudu Mayombwe from the title was duly communicated to the Appellant/Applicant and that this ground of appeal should fail and the appeal be dismissed.

PaBe 13 of 17

### Analysis

350 S. 88 of the Land Act gives the Registrar powers to cancel certificates of title under certain circumstances and the procedure to be followed and it states as follows:

> " (4) tlpon making a finding on the mattea the Registrar of Tttles sha// communicate his or her decision in writing to the parties giving the reasons for the decision made, and may call for the duplicate certiftcate of tit/e or instrument for cance/lation, corection or delivery to the proper party."

355 Under S. 88 (1 0) (d) it is provided that in exercise of any powers under this section, the Registrar of titles shall;

(d) Give reasons for any deciston that he or she may take

Under S. 88 (1 1) the Registrar of titles is required to communicate his/her decision in writing to the parties and the committee. Communication to the parties in writing and giving reasons for any decision reached after holding a public hearing is mandatory. ln this case the Commissioner/Registrar's communication to the Appellant after the public hearing was as follows: 360

36s "29h October 2023

> Serwanla Kaweewa Sadati (Administrator of the Estate of the /ate Mayombwe Muhamudu)

Grace Mugasa Adyeeri

370 PO Box 2177A Kampa/a

# RE., BULEMEZ| BLOCK 56 PLOT 28, UND AT JJANDA & BULEMEZI ELOCK 64 PLOT 529, LAND AT KALERE

Reference is made to the pub/ic hearrngs that were held on the 5h of Septembe4 2023 & 28h September 2023 in respect of the above mentioned parcel of /and fo//owing a complaint from Wante & Company Advocates actrng for and on beha/f of Sembatya Badru and Naktbirango Edith, the Admtnistrators

Page 14 of 17

of the Estate of Late Nampiima Lazra to the effect that he i//ega//y got registered on the above /and.

380 The purpose of this letter is therefore to inform you that this office has taken a decision to cance/ the entry of the /ate Mayombwe Muhammad off the register book in respect of the certificates of Tit/e comprised in Eulemezi Block

56 Plot 263 Land at Jianda & Bulemezi Block 64 Plot 529 Land at Kalere.

You are according/y requtred to surender to this offrce fofthwith the Dupltcate Certificates of tit/e in your custody that were in possession of the late Mayombwe Muhamudu for cance/lation without any further delay.

Any person aggrieved with the decision of the office can appea/ to the High Court within 60 days of this notice in accordance with Section 9l (/0) of the Land Act as Amended.

38s

Kabira Aisha Principal Registrar of Titles FOR,. COMM/SSIONER UND REGISTRAflON " C. C Sembatya Badru and Nakibirango Edith,/ the Administrators of the Estate of Late Nampiima Laztz of Wante & Company Advocates"

The trial Judge found that Paragraph 1 of the letter gave the reason for the cancellation. My understanding of Paragraph 1 is that it sets out the complaint as communicated by lvl/S Wante & Co Advocates and not the reason for the Respondent's decision to cancel the two titles.

It is a mandatory requirement under s.88(4) & (1 1) of the Land Act that the Registrar gives reasons for the decision he/she makes regarding his findings on the matter at hand after holding the public hearing. 400

ln the instant case, apart from communicating the decision taken, the Registrar did not give reasons for his decision in regard to his actions which affected the Applicant/Appellant's title. This was procedurally improper.

It is also important to note that the complaint addressed to the Registrar had nothing to do with the Appellant's title which is comprised in Bulemezi Block 56, plot 253 land at Jjanda. The complaint was in regard to Bulemezi Block 54, plot 529 land at Kalere. These are two different pieces of land. The Block numbers, plot numbers and locations are different. lt is not clear why the Appellant was summoned when there was no complaint against her title. There is no explanation from the Registrar.

It is a principle of natural justice that anyone accused of wrongdoing must be notified of the accusation. This ensures a fair hearing and opportunity to respond to the accusation and it prevents arbitrary decisions.

415 In this case, therefore, having found that the Appellant was summoned without basis, lwould find that the Registrar acted irrationally and cancelled the Appellant's title without justification and as a result of the above, I find that Grounds 2, 3 & 4 of the appeal also fa il.

### Remedies

420 Section 36 (1) (Now S. 40 (1)) of the Judicature Act, Cap 16 provides for judicial review and states as follows:

> (7) The High Court may, upon an application forjudicial revrerv grant any one or more of the following reliefs in a civi/ or criminal matter-

(a) an order of mandamus, requiring any act to be done,'

(b) an order of prohibition, prohibiting any proceedrngs or mattei or

Page 15 of 17

Under rule 3 of the Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules, 2019,

Certiorari is defined as an order by court to quash a decision which is ultra vires, while Prohibition is defined as an order issued by court to forbid some act or decision which would be ultra vires.

- 435 Having found that this appeal has succeeded on all the grounds raised, lwould make the following orders: - 1. The ruling and orders of the learned trial Judge in MC No. 257 of 2023 Mugasa Grace Adyeri -v- The Commissioner land Registration are hereby set aside. - 440 2. An Order of certiorari is hereby issued quashing the decision of the Respondent to cancel entry of the names of the late Muhamudu Mayombwe on the Certificate of title of the land comprised in Bulemezi Block 56 Plot 253 land at Jjanda. - 3. An Order of prohibition is hereby issued restraining the Respondent from effecting any transfers in respect of land comprised in Bulemezi Block 56 - Plot 263 land at Jjanda to any 3'd party. - 4. The Respondent pays costs of this appeal and in the court below.

It is so ordered.

Dated at Kampala this 2 tJ' day ol Jt-tt1 2025

E JA.

Page 17 of 17

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (Coram: Byaruhanga'Rugyema, Nambayo, Alibateese, JJAI CIVIL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2024 (Arising from Civil Suit No. 257 of 2023)

# MUGASA GRACE ADYERI APPELLANT VERSUS

COMMISSIONER LAND REGISTRATION RESPONDENT (Appeal from the decision of the High Court of lJganda at Kampala Civil Division, before Wamala, J, delivered on the 19h day of July 2024 in High Court Miscellaneous Cause No- 257 of 2023)

# JUDGMENT OF BYARUHANGA JESSE RUGYEMA, JA

I have had the opportunity of reading the lead judgment of my Iearned sister, Nambayo Esta, JA and I concur with her judgment and the orders made.

Since the Hon. Lady Justice Alibateese, JA also concurs, the appeal succeeds with costs of this appeal to the Appellant.

It flut- 1 Dated at Kampala this .....2 I day of 2025

Byaruhanga Jesse RugYema, JA

#### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

#### IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

(CORAM: BYARUHANGA-RUGYEMA, NAMBAYO & ALIBATEESE, JJA)

## CIVIL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2024 (Arising from MC No.257 of 2023)

MUGASA GRACE ADYEERI:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

#### **VERSUS**

$10$

$\mathsf{S}$

COMMISSIONER LAND REGISTRATION:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Appeal from the decision of the High Court of Uganda at Kampala Civil Division, before Wamala, J, delivered on the 19th day of July 2024 in High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 257 of 2023)

#### JUDGEMENT OF STELLA ALIBATEESE, JA

I have had the benefit of reading the draft judgement of my learned sister, Hon. Lady Justice Nambayo Esta, JA and I am in agreement with her reasoning and the orders proposed.

Dated and delivered at Kampala this $2\int_0^{\infty}$ day of $JULY$ 2025

Stella Alibateese

JUSTICE OF APPEAL