Nabukenya v Bwogi and Another (Civil Suit No. 251 of 2009) [2017] UGHCLD 373 (18 October 2017)

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA ATTKAMPALAd Appendic referred to in the annexed officiavit of..... LAND DIVISION sworn / declared before methis.................................... **CIVIL SUIT NO. 251 OF 2009** COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS ROSEMARY NABUKENYA-----------------------------------------PLXINTIFF (Administrator of the estate of the late Lwiiza Nalongo)

#### VERSUS

# 1. BWOGI ABDUL-NASIR

2. WILLIAM NSAMUZI KASIGA

IFIED TRUE BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE GODFREY NAMUNI

## JUDGMENT

This matter was first handled by Justice Damalie Lwanga before it was re- allocated to me. According to the Court record, before the hearing of the matter could proceed, the trial judge dismissed the $\dot{J}$ suit against the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant under Order 5 Rules 1 (3) of the Civil ♦ Procedure Rules. This was because the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant had never been served with summons and a plaint and no application had been made for extension of time over the years. The case proceeded only against the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant.

The Plaintiff brought this suit against the 1st Defendant seeking the following orders;


EFENDANTS

- $1.$ A declaration that Block 9 Plot 358 belongs to the estate of the Late Lwiiza Nanyonga. - 2. An order directing the cancellation of the Defendant's Certificate of Title by the Registrar of Titles. - 3. An order directing the entry of the administrator on the register. - 4. A declaration that the second Defendant's name was registered illegally.

5. Costs of the suit.

$\cdot$

The basis of the Plaintiff's case is that the suit land comprised in Block 9 Plot 358 belonged to her late mother, Lwiiza Malia Nalongo Nanyonga. Her mother on 3.07.1953 purchased the entire chunk of land at Makerere Kivulu which was later demarcated into plots 351 to 360. The said plots were registered in the names her mother on .15.04.1961 under Instrument No. MRV 201 Folio 12.

When her mother died, she left a will in which she had declared her wealth. The plaintiff together with the beneficiaries started to trace for the rightful documentations but failed to get the same. They embarked on private investigation and discovered that the micro film is in the names of the Late Lwiza Malia Nalongo but a certificate of title was caused to be registered in the names of Lumu B. S Lumu. The said Lumu then transferred his proprietorship to William Nsamuzi Kasiga, the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant. The 1<sup>st</sup> defendant bought the suit land from the $2^{nd}$ defendant and he was registered as proprietor on 19.06.2008.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants illegally caused the registration of their names on the Certificate of Title to defeat the interests of the beneficiaries of the estate of the Late Lwiza and to protect the interests of the beneficiaries; she lodged a caveat on the

$\mathcal{L}$

Jt land. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant's procured and caused their names to be entered on the Certificate of Title illegally and through fraud.

The particulars of fraud alleged against the 1st defendant were;

. *f '*

*b*

o

a

- a) Failure to carry out a search before purchasing the said land >. • from Kasiga Nsamuzi William. - b) Misrepresenting facts in .the transfer forms and therefore caused the Registrar of Titles to enter his names on the . Certificate of Title for Block 9 Plot 358 Kibuga land at Kagugube. •' -

c) Procuring registration on a forged signature of Kasiga.;

The 1st Defendant in his Written Statement of Defense denied all the allegations of fact as set out in. the Plaint. He contended that the suit property was bought by his father, Musa Mayanja Luyombya from its then registered proprietor William Luyombya; His father made a search in the land office Kampala where he established that it was free from any encumbrances. He then purchased the suit pmperty in May 2008 and took possession of it Without any Complainant from the Plaintiff. His father then donated the suit property to bim and caused for a direct transfer of the property into his names.

Further that around May 2009, he made a search in the land office and discovered that there was a caveat lodged on the title by the Plaintiff. He initiated steps for its removal by filing a miscellaneous cause at Mengo Court and another one in the High Court but it was agreed that a formal suit be filed by the Plaintiff so that, all points of contention and controversy can be determined in finality.

In regard to the allegations of fraud against him, the 1st Defendant responded that;,

**3**

**}M**

- a) At the time of purchasing the suit property, a search was conducted which revealed that the title was free from any encumbrance. - b) There was no misrepresentation of facts in the transfer forms. - c) The vendor William Nsamuzi Kasiga duly signed the transfer into the names of the $1^{st}$ Defendant.

He went on that the Plaintiff did not have a registerable or caveatable interest in the suit property and if she does have any, the same ought to have been made against the $1^{\text{st}}$ proprietor Emmanuel B. S. Lumu.

He counter claimed against the Plaintiff seeking the dismissal of her suit with costs and orders that:

- a) The Plaintiff's caveat lodged on the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendants Certificate. of Title for Block 9 Kibuga Plot 358 Makerere Kagugube vide instrument No. KLA 392831 is vacated. - b) The Plaintiff pays general damages to the Defendant for inconvenience.

c) Costs on the counter claim.

When the matter came up for hearing, the Plaintiff brought 3 witnesses in support of her case while the Defendant brought 4 witnesses. The following was the evidence of the parties at trial:

PW1; Karamagi Joel Christopher, a surveyor testified that he was instructed by the attorney of the Plaintiff to establish the plots covered by the old house. In their survey they found out that plot 358 was developed with a building that lay within 2 plots, namely; plot 358 and 360. The survey report was admitted in evidence as Pexh 1

$\overline{4}$

PW2; James Kibalama represented the Plaintiff. He testified that he was granted Powers of Attorney by the Plaintiff to assist her and pursue her cases. He adduced evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had always been in actual possession of part of the suit land.

PW3; Lutaya John Vieny, a Principal Staff Surveyor based in Entebbe Ministry of Lands in the Department of Surveys and Mapping adduced evidence on the history of the suit land as recorded in the microfilm

DW1; Musa Mayanja Muyombya for the Defendant testified that he bought the suit land on 8.5.2008 from William Nsangi Kasiga, the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant, and donated the land to his son, Bwogi Abdul, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. He testified that he carried a search before the purchase and the suit land was free from encumbrances.

DW2; Badru Bwanika Walade, testified that he has been the LC1 Chairman of Makerere Kivulu 1 since 2002. He acknowledged the Plaintiff as a resident of the area and he also witnessed the purchase of the suit land by DW1.

DW3; Sekito Moses, a Senior Registrar of Titles stationed at KCCA testified on behalf of the Commissioner Land Registration. He led evidence on the proprietorship of plot 358 Block 9 as it is recorded in the land registry.

DW4; Daudi Kasinga, a surveyor led evidence that he was instructed by DW1 to open boundaries of the suit land. From the survey, they found that.2 buildings encroached on the suit land. The survey report was admitted in evidence as D Exh 4.

The parties through their lawyers filed written submissions which I shall refer to.

$\mathsf{S}$

The agreed issues to be determined by Court were:

- 1. Whether the land in dispute forms part of the estate of the Late Malia Lwiza Nalongo Nanyonga? - 2. Whether or not the $1<sup>st</sup>$ defendant is a bonafide purchaser of the suit land for value without notice? - 3. Whether or not the $1<sup>st</sup>$ defendant's title is liable for cancellation for land comprised in Kyadondo Block 9 Plot 358? - 4. What remedies are available to the parties?

### **Resolution of issues**

#### Issue 1

## Whether the land in dispute forms part of the estate of the Late *Malia Lwiza Nalongo Nanyonga?*

It was submitted by Counsel for the Plaintiff that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes court to believe in its existence. Counsel referred to Sections 102 and 103 of the Evidence Act and cited the case of Eva Lubwama Takirambudde & Anor Vs Bank of Africa & 4 others H. C. C. S No. 177 of 2013 to support his point.

Counsel went on that the oral testimony of PW3 together with the documentary records from Entebbe land and Surveys department proved that the owner of plot 358 Block 9 is the late M. Lwiza Nalongo Nanyonga, hence that the land in dispute formed part of the estate of the late Lwiza.

It was submitted for the first Defendant that the Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden upon her to prove ownership of the suit land. Exhibit P7, a letter from the Department of Lands and Surveys Entebbe showing the results of a search conducted in the archives


of the microfilms at Entebbe is not proof of current ownership of the suit land. That DW1 prior to purchasing the suit land made a search at the Land Office Kampala and he did not find any encumbrance at all. He inspected the land with the LC1, DW2 and it was clear that the land was surrounded by a fence and the Plaintiff's house was outside the fence.

Counsel went on that according to Exhibit D3; the first entry on the certificate of title was made on 15.04.1961 in the names of Emmanuel B. S. Lumu of P. O. Box 14005 Mengo. The 2<sup>nd</sup> entry was that of the $2^{nd}$ defendant on 21.09.2001. The 1<sup>st</sup> defendant was registered on 19.06.2008 under instrument no. KLA 378875. Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff ought to have joined the $1^{st}$ proprietor Emmanuel B. S Lumu as a party to the suit but she feared because of the principle of limitation of time. Counsel referred to Section 5 of the Limitation Act which provides that no action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of 12 years from the date in which the right of action accrued. Counsel prayed that this issue is resolved in favour of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant.

It was rightly submitted for the Plaintiff that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes court to believe in its existence.

Ref: Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372.

In the instant case, the Plaintiff seeks to recover the suit land comprised in Block 9 Plot 358 land at Kagugube. The suit land is currently registered in the names of the 1st Defendant who was registered on 19.06.2008.

From the evidence adduced by PW2 at trial, the suit land is part of a chunk of land that was purchased by the mother of the Plaintiff on $-03.07.1953$ . A copy of this sale agreement was adduced in evidence


as Pexh3. This fact was not disputed by the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant. Exhibit Pexh 3 reads that the late Lwiza bought all the land located in Makerere Kivulu that belonged to Eriyabu Nsubuga. It was unregistered land and the boundaries of this land were described in the agreement.

It emerges from the evidence on record that the late Lwiza then constructed a house on the land. PW2 submitted for identification a copy of the alleged building plan for this house. He also submitted in evidence photos of this house currently as it was built on the land. From the evidence adduced by PW3, it is emerges that the late Lwiza then processed plot numbers for her land.

Exhibit P7, a search report from the Department of Lands and Survey Entebbe shows that as of 15.02.1961, the late Lwiza was the owner of plots 351 to 360. This fact was admitted by both PW3 and DW3 from the Ministry of Lands. It was also undisputed by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. Exhibit P8, the ammonia copy of the title from the Lands Department in Entebbe admitted in evidence by PW3 indicates that the late Lwiza was the owner of the land in dispute as of 15.02.1961 registered under instrument no. MRV 201 Folio 12.

On the other hand, DW3; a Senior Registrar of Titles stationed at KCCA testified that he was in possession of the file in respect of the suit land. It was his evidence that according to the records kept at the Department of Lands at KCCA, the first registered owner of the plot was Emmanuel B. S. Lumu of P. O. Box 14005 Mengo. He was registered on 15.04.1961 under Instrument No. MRV 201 Folio 12.

The records kept at the Lands Department Entebbe as testified by PW3. the Principal Staff Surveyor reveal that Lwiza was registered as proprietor of this same land in February in the same year that Lumu was registered and under the same instrument number.

DW3 further led evidence that title was transferred to William Nsangi Kasiga of P. O. Box 10964 Kampala under instrument no.<br>KLA 229094 on 21.09.2001. Title was then transferred to Bwogi Abdul Nasir, DW1. He also led evidence that at the time the $1^{st}$ defendant was registered, the land had no encumbrance. The Plaintiff put an encumbrance on 14.10.2008 after Bwogi had been registered.

DW1 testified that at the time he bought the suit land it was free of any encumbrance. He inspected the land with DW2, the LC1. Chairman of the area and he found that the land had a house of 3 rooms constructed by the former owner, (the $2^{nd}$ defendant). It was partly fenced with a wall fence, iron sheets and a main gate. He then replaced the wall fence and the main gate with a new one. He verified the boundaries in 2012 after a caveat was lodged on title and it was found that the plaintiff's house was partly on plot 356 and partly on his plot.

Exhibit P1, a survey report by PW1 revealed that plot 358 was developed with a building that lied in both plots 358 and 360. The index diagram attached to the report indicates a building that lays in the boundary of both plots 358 and 360 covering small portions of both plots.

Exhibit D4, a survey report by DW4 opening the boundaries of plot 358 reveals that plot 358 was encroached on by the occupants of plot 360 and 357.

From the evidence on record, it is clear that the late Lwiza at one time owned plot 358. When she bought the chunk of land in 1953, she settled on it and constructed a house. She registered her land and owned plots 351 to 360. The house she built occupied small portions on both plots 358 and 360. The evidence on court record shows that both Lwiza and Lumu were registered on the same plot 358 within the same year using the same instrument number. It is


afortunate that both departments of land in Entebbe and Kampala recorded the two persons as the owners of the suit land.

Upon evaluation of the evidence on record, it is my considered view that the Plaintiffs claim over the suit land ought to have been against Lumu to explain the circumstances under which he was registered on the suit land. Over time the land changed hands from Lumu to the $2^{nd}$ Defendant and then to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. This suit was filed about 47 years later after it had changed hands from the late Lwiza to the current proprietor.

The law on limitation of actions is provided for under the Limitation Act. Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for a Limitation of 12 years within which to bring an action for the recovery of land from the date on which the right of action accrued to him or her and if it first accrued to some person through whom he or she claims from that person. In my view, the Plaintiff's action for the recovery of the proprietorship of the land is out of time. Her action for the recovery of the land accrued in 1961 at the time when the land was registered in the names of Lumu under the same instrument number.

The 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant is currently in occupation of the land and is in possession of its certificate of title. Section 59 of the Registration of Title Act is to the effect that a certificate of title is conclusive evidence of title. It specifically states that: '

No certificate of title issued upon an application to bring land under this Act shall be impeached or defeasible by reason or on account of any informality or irregularity in the application or in the proceedings previous to the registration of the certificate, and every certificate of title issued under this Act shall be received in all courts as evidence of the particulars set forth in the certificate and of the entry of the certificate in the Register Book, and shall be conclusive evidence that the person named in the certificate as

the proprietor of or having any estate or interest in or power to appoint or dispose of the land described in the certificate is seized or possessed of that estate or interest or has that power.'

It is my finding that the suit land comprised in Block 9 Plot 358 is the property of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant and does not form part of the estate of the Late Lwiza. The suit land comprised in Plot 358 Block 9 belongs to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant and I find no reason to dispute his ownership of the land.

## Issue 2.

# 1. Whether or not the $1<sup>st</sup>$ defendant is a bonafide purchaser of the suit land for value without notice?

It was submitted for the Plaintiff that the $1^{st}$ defendant was put on notice of the vendor being registered while the caveat of Bukenya was still subsisting and by reason thereof cannot claim to be bonafide purchasers for value without notice.

It was submitted for the Defendant that at the time the $\int$ st. Defendant's father, DW1, purchased the suit property, there was no encumbrance in the land office either by the Plaintiff or another person. The wall fence surrounding the land gave it its shape such that there was no need for the purchaser to engage a surveyor for boundary opening. The plaintiff's house was totally outside the wall fence.

It is a well known legal principle that a certificate of title is. conclusive evidence of title and such estate of a registered proprietor is paramount as against all claims. Ref: Section 59, 64 and 176 of the RTA.

he law however provides certain exceptions to this rule and, an allegation of fraud is one of the commonest claims by which a registered proprietor can be ejected from land. Section 176 of the RTA specifically states;

'176. Registered proprietor protected against ejectment except in certain cases.

No action of ejectment or other action for the recovery of any land shall lie or be sustained against the person registered as proprietor under this Act, except in any of the following cases—

(c) the case of a person deprived of any land by fraud as against $\frac{1}{2}$ the person registered as proprietor of that land through fraud or as against a person deriving otherwise than as a transferee bona fide for value from or through a person so registered through fraud:'

In the instant case, the plaintiff alleges fraud on the part of the $1^{st}$ Defendant. The particulars of which were;

- a. Failure to carry out a search before purchasing the said land. from Kasiga Nsamuzi William. - b. Misrepresenting facts in the transfer forms and therefore caused the Registrar of Titles to enter his names on the Certificate of Title for Block 9 Plot 358 Kibuga land at Kagugube.

c. Procuring registration on a forged signature of Kasiga.

$\begin{array}{c} \text{f} \\ \text{f} \end{array}$

Allegations of fraud must be proved strictly, the burden being heavier than on a balance of probabilities generally applied in civi matters: Ref: Katureebe JSC in Mpungu and Sons Transporter: Limited v Attorney General and another [2006] 1 EA 212 and also

Wambuzi, C, J in Kampala Bottlers v Damanico (U) Ltd SCCA No. 22 of 1992.

Fraud is a serious matter and an allegation of fraud needs to be fully and carefully inquired into: Ref: Katureebe, JSC in Fredrick J. K Zaabwe Orient Bank & 5 others Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006. In cases of fraud, it is pertinent to establish whether any fraud has been committed upon the complainant, who committed the fraud if at all? Was the defendant involved in the fraud? Or did he become aware of the fraud?

Inspite of the allegations by the Plaintiff as listed in the plaint, no evidence was adduced to substantiate the claims.

In regard to the fact as to whether the $1^{st}$ Defendant was a bonafide purehaser for value without notice.

()I find instructive the holding of Odoki J. A in David Sajjaaka Nalima v Rebecca Musoke Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1985 on the doctrine of bonafide purchaser for value without notice, that:

'This common law doctrine is provided for under S.189 of the Registration of Titles Act. The section however does not define who is a bona fide purchaser, but merely provides for his protection. There is a dearth of Ugandan or East African authorities on this section. However, in the case of Robert Lusweswe V. G. W. Kasule & another Civil suit No. 1010 of 1983 (unreported).

I had occasion to consider this section and Said.

$\frac{1}{2}$

"The effect of this section is that once a registered proprietor has purchased the property in good faith his title cannot $be$ impeached $on$ account of the fraud of the previous registered proprietor. A bona fide

$13$

purchaser therefore obtains a good title even if he purchases from a proprietor who previously obtained by fraud.

However, before a purchaser can claim the protection of S. 189 of the Registration of Titles Act, he, must act in good faith. If he is guilty of fraud or sharp practice he will cease to be innocent and therefore lose the protection. An action against him under Section $184$ (c) of the Act which provides in relevant parts as follows: "184. No action of ejectment or other action for recovery of any land shall lie or be sustained against the person registered as proprietor under the provisions of this Act except in any of the following cases -

#### (a) 丌 $(b)$

(c) the case of a person deprived of any land by fraud as against •a person deriving otherwise than as a transferee bona fide for value from or through a person registered through fraud;

$(d)$

$(e)$

and in any case other than as aforesaid the production of the registered certificate of title or lease shall be held in every court to been an absolute bar and estoppel to any such action against the person named in such document as the grantee, owner, proprietor or lessee of the land there in described an law or equity to the contrary notwithstanding."

In the instant case, it was the evidence of DW1 that at the time he bought the suit land it was free of any encumbrance. He inspected the land with DW2, the LC1 Chairman of the area and he found that the land had a house of 3 rooms constructed by the former owner, (the $2^{nd}$ defendant). It was partly fenced with a wall fence, iron sheets and a main gate. He then replaced the wall fence and the

$\overline{14}$

main gate with a new one. It was also his evidence that he verified ownership at the land office and he found no encumbrance on the suit land.

The evidence of DW1 was collaborated by DW3 who testified that at the time the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant was registered, the land had no encumbrance. The Plaintiff lodged a caveat on the land on 14.10.2008 after Bwogi had been registered.

From the evidence on record, I find that the plaintiff has not adduced any evidence to connect the $1^{st}$ Defendant to any acts of fraud. On a balance of probabilities, it is my finding that the $I^{st}$ defendant bought the suit land in good faith and without notice of any irregularity on the title.

Issue 3

# Whether or not the $1<sup>st</sup>$ defendant's title is liable for cancellation for land comprised in Kyadondo Block 9 Plot 358?

I have already held in issue 1 and 2 above that the $1<sup>st</sup>$ defendant was a bonafide purchaser of the suit land for value without notice of any irregularity and that he is the rightful owner of the suit land comprised in Block 9 Plot 358 hence his title cannot be liable for cancellation.

Issue 4

# What remedies are available to the parties?

## I) The Plaintiff's claim;

The plaintiff sought the following orders;

1. A declaration that Block 9 Plot 358 belongs to the estate of the Late Lwiiza Nanyonga.

- 2. An order directing the cancellation of the Defendant's Certificate of Title by the Registrar of Titles. - 3. An order directing the entry of the administrator on the register. - 4. A declaration that the second Defendant's name was registered illegally.

## 5. Costs of the suit.

Court has already found that the $1<sup>st</sup>$ Defendant who is the registered proprietor of the suit land is the rightful owner of the land. Court has also found that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant was a bonafide purchaser of the suit land for value without notice of the irregularity that was recorded in the Ministry of Lands as per the records kept in the Lands Department Entebbe visa vis those kept in the Lands Department at Kampala. The Plaintiff's claim fails and thus the orders above mentioned sought by the Plaintiff cannot be granted.

## II) The Counter claim:

In the counter claim, the Defendant sought for orders that:

- a) The plaintiff's caveat lodged on the $1^{\alpha}$ Defendants Certificate of Title for Block 9 Kibuga Plot 358 Makerere Kagugube vide instrument No. KLA 392831 is vacated. - b) The Plaintiff pays general damages to the Defendant for inconvenience. - c) Costs on the counter claim.

The 1st Defendant being the successful party in the main suit is entitled to an order for removal of the caveat lodged on his Certificate of Title for land comprised in Block 9 Kibuga Plot 358 Makerere Kagugube.

In the prayer for general damages, I find that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant has not demonstrated that he suffered any inconvenience by the Plaintiff's claim. At the time he bought the land he never opened boundaries to establish size of his land. The Plaintiff's house was lying within his land at the time he bought but he discovered this later after the plaintiff raised claims on the land. I do not find this an appropriate case to award general damages against the counter defendant.

Accordingly, the plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs. Judgment is entered on the counterclaim in favour of the counter claimant in the following terms:

1. The Commissioner Land Registration is hereby directed to remove the caveat lodged vide instrument No. KLA 392831 on the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendants Certificate of Title for land comprised in Block 9 Kibuga Plot 358 Makerere Kagugube.

2. The counter claimant is awarded costs on the counter claim.

CERTIFIED TRUE **GODFREY NAMUNDI** $\int_{\hat{L}} \int_{\hat{F}} JUDGE$ Date:

FEES PAID

#### THE REPUBLI OF UGANDA

#### referred to in the anne red officavit of............ IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA<br>Shorm / declared before no this.........day of.................................... (LAND DIVISION) 20.................................... **CIVIL SUIT NO. 251 OF 2009**

ROSE MARY NABUKENYA =====================PLAINTIFF.................................. (Administratrix of the Estate of the Late Maria Lwiiza Nalongo Nanyonga)

OMONY STANLEY COMMISSIONER FOR DATHS

This is the Exhibit marked Annexture.......

#### **VERSUS**

1. BWOGI ABDUL-NASIR

$\left(\begin{smallmatrix} & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \end{smallmatrix}\right)$

2. WILLIAM NSAMUZI KASIGA================= DEFENDANTS

### DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT

UPON THIS Matter coming up for final disposal on the 18th day of October, 2017 before HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE NAMUNDI GODFREY in the presence of MR. MUSOKE SULEMAN (Counsel for the First Defendant), Mr. Kibalama James (attorney of the Plaintiff) and Mr. Musa Mayanja Luyombya (attorney of the First Defendant) it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that the Plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs AND that judgment be entered on the counterclaim as follows:

- $(1)$ THAT the suit land comprised in Block 9 Plot 358 Kibuga is the property of the First Defendant and it does not form part of the estate of the late Maria Lwiza. - THAT the First Defendant was a bonafide purchaser of the suit land $(2)$ without notice of any irregularity and that he is the rightful owner thereof. - THAT the commissioner for land registration is hereby directed to remove $(3)$ the caveat lodged vide instrument number KLA392831 on the First Defendant's certificate of title for land comprised in Block 9 Kibuga Plot 358 Makerere Kagugube.

THAT the Plaintiff shall pay costs under the counterclaim to the First $(4)$ Defendant. TIFIEDS T GIVEN under my Hand and the Seal of this Honourable Coup HE ORIGIN $-2017.$ day of $\mathcal{L}$ REGISTRA **HIGH COURT** Extracted by Musoke Suleman & Co. Advocates Plots 19-23 Entebbe Road Eseria Building First Floor, Suite No. 11 **FEES PAIL** RECEIP Opposite Goodshed and adjacent to Shell Petrol Station P. O. Box 27732 Kampala.