Nateete Twale Muslim Community Limited v Commissioner Land Registration & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 155 of 2023) [2024] UGHCLD 268 (15 November 2024)

#### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

### IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

#### (LAND DIVISION)

#### **MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 155 OF 2023**

#### **NATETE TWALE MUSLIM COMMUNITY LTD :: APPLICANT**

#### **VERSUS**

THE COMMISSIONER LAND REGISTRATION

SENOGA DIRISA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

# **BEFORE: HON; LADY JUSTICE NALLUZE AISHA BATALA RULING**

#### **Introduction;**

- 1. Natete Twale Muslim Community Limited herein after referred to as the Applicant/appellant brought this application against the Commissioner Land Registration and Senoga Dirisa hereinafter referred to as the 1st and 2nd respondents respectively for orders that: - $\mathbf{i}$ A declaration that the decision of the 1st. respondent was issued in error when he cancelled a special Certificate of title issued to the applicant. - ii) The impugned decision of the Commissioner Hamleyey - $\mathbf{1}$

Land Registration be quashed and set aside.

iii) Costs of this application be provided for.

#### *Applicant's evidence;*

- 2. The application is supported by the affidavit of Kizito Abdul Wahab which briefly states as follows: - i) That in an agreement dated 14in February, 1997, Uganda Muslim Supreme Council entered into o joint venture with Prime Women Investment Ltd and by virtue of the said agreement it transferred and mutated off 3 acres known as LRV 1638 folio 3 into the names of prime Women investment ltd

ii) That around 20th June 2012 Prime Women Investments Ltd applied and the application was granted to convert LRV l638 FOLIO 3 Plot l2 into a freehold title and the lease certificate of title was delivered to the Commissioner land registration for cancellation.

iii) That pursuant to an Agreement dated 9th December 2014, Prime Women Investments Limited the then registered proprietor sold the said suit Land to the Appellant for valuable Consideration who was

subsequently registered as proprietor.

iv) That the applicant upon losing her duplicate certificate of title applied for a special Certificate of title which was issued.

v) That the office of the Commissioner Land Registration held that the same was issued erroneously and instantaneously cancelled it against the rule of functus officio

#### *Respondent's evidence;*

- 3. The 2nd respondent replied to the application by way of an affidavit in reply deponed by himself which briefly states as follows; - i) That the suit land is registered in the names of Uganda Muslim Supreme Council. - ii) That the application for cancellation of the special Certificate of titles was made by the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council because they have always been in possession of the duplicate Certificate of title with the knowledge of the other directors of the applicant company. - iii)That once the commissioner land Registration was

made aware of the existence of the duplicate certificate of title, he had to cancel the special Certificate of title which had been issued in error.

#### *Representation;*

4. The applicant was represented by Counsel Fahad Matovu of M/S Nakachwa, Matovu & Co. Advocates, the 1st respondent was represented by Counsel Arinaitwe sharon and the 2nd respondent was represented Counsel Kyobe William of M/S KAL Advocates.

#### *Issues for determination;*

## *Whether the instant application is properly before this court?*

#### *Resolution and determination;*

- 5. Both the applicant/appellants and respondents did not file submissions to argue this appeal. I cannot speculate the intended arguments the parties had for this appeal. I will proceed and determine this matter on the basis of their affidavits filed in this court. - 6. In paragraph 4,5 and 6 of the applicant's affidavit in support of the motion, it is the applicant's case that by an

agreement dated 14th February 1997 Uganda Muslim Supreme Council entered into a joint venture with prime Women Investments Limited and as a result 3 acres of land were mutated off LRV 1638 Folio 3 into the names of Prime Women Investments Limited. Subsequently in 2012, Prime Women Investments Limited applied for the lease to be converted to Freehold and it was granted.

- 7. The lease title was delivered to the Commissioner Land Registration and it was cancelled. - 8. In paragraph 7 and 8 of the same affidavit, it is the applicant's case that pursuant to an agreement in 2014, Prime Women Investment Limited then sold the land to the applicant in this case for valuable consideration and consequently the applicant was entered on the title as the registered proprietor. - 9. The applicant upon losing her duplicate Certificate of title applied to the Commissioner Land Registration to issue a special Certificate of title which was later issued. It is then that the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council requested for the said cancellation of the said certificate of Title which was controversially cancelled. - 10. However, in paragraph 5 of the affidavit in reply

deponed by the 2nd respondent he contends that the land in question is registered in the names of Uganda Muslim Supreme Council.

- 11. He further states in paragraph 8 of his affidavit in reply that the application for cancellation of the certificate of title was made by Uganda Muslim Supreme Council because it has always been in possession of the Duplicate Certificate of title with the knowledge of the other Directors of the applicant company. - 12. From the foregoing, I note that this is a land dispute and goes beyond the hearing and the decision attached thereto. This case among others raises serious questions of fact as to who the lawful owner of the land is. Further, the matter has a long history and the questions raised herein can best be determined in a full trial. - 13. I will take the approach by the Supreme Court in **Joseph Bayego v The Chief Registrar of titles Civil Appeal No 20 of 1994**, The aggrieved party or parties should file a suit and have all questions in controversy between them determined once and for all and the Commissioner Land Registration can be joined as party to the same for his shortcomings.

14. In the premises, the application is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.

### **I SO ORDER**.

#### **NALUZZE AISHA BATALA**

**Ag. JUDGE**

#### **15th/11/2024**

#### **Delivered Electronically via ECCMIS on the 15 th day of**

#### **November, 2024**