St. Mark Educational Centre Ltd vs Makerere University (Civil Appeal No 40 of 1997) [1998] UGCA 20 (19 November 1998)

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f199\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f200\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f202\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f203\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f204\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f205\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f206\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f207\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \snext0 \styrsid3937599 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{ \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa100\sbauto1\saauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid3937599 Normal (Web);}{\s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid3937599 footer;}{\*\cs17 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid3937599 page number;}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\pgptbl {\pgp\ipgp0\itap0\li0\ri0\sb0\sa0}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid12292\rsid263824\rsid483953\rsid532800\rsid656068\rsid853000\rsid1212221\rsid1263153\rsid1328200\rsid1589256\rsid1597739\rsid1769736\rsid1979034 \rsid1985355\rsid2183088\rsid2183999\rsid2753621\rsid2833257\rsid2891500\rsid3035935\rsid3436095\rsid3891542\rsid3937599\rsid4013346\rsid4154319\rsid4606034\rsid4615111\rsid4798843\rsid4804988\rsid4812412\rsid4816222\rsid4994645\rsid5249105\rsid5257113 \rsid5338672\rsid5393925\rsid5529574\rsid5578182\rsid5599792\rsid5708452\rsid5925591\rsid6168920\rsid6227913\rsid6298534\rsid6761646\rsid6774612\rsid6953789\rsid7235957\rsid7297041\rsid7555992\rsid7699176\rsid7878088\rsid8001677\rsid8466191\rsid8538801 \rsid8545157\rsid8857076\rsid9138396\rsid9583136\rsid9729420\rsid10119127\rsid10384870\rsid10438333\rsid10517635\rsid10693564\rsid10703749\rsid10825639\rsid10975670\rsid11025202\rsid11078177\rsid11350863\rsid11563786\rsid11930287\rsid12138116\rsid12526284 \rsid12718503\rsid12742138\rsid13117596\rsid13255604\rsid13435762\rsid13466614\rsid13512610\rsid13720995\rsid13914955\rsid14043846\rsid14428627\rsid14626845\rsid14839716\rsid14942689\rsid15430543\rsid15688051\rsid15798275\rsid15818385\rsid15882927 \rsid15952220\rsid16061834\rsid16084859\rsid16150457\rsid16581033\rsid16673595}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title \\ }{\author Wor. Jessica chemeri}{\operator Wor. Jessica chemeri}{\creatim\yr2008\mo8\dy1\hr11\min24} {\revtim\yr2008\mo9\dy15\hr11\min53}{\version4}{\edmins45}{\nofpages13}{\nofwords3138}{\nofchars15692}{\*\company }{\nofcharsws18753}{\vern24689}} \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot3937599\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid3937599 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid3937599 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid3937599 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid3937599 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\footer \pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\pvpara\phmrg\posxr\posy0\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12138116 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs17\insrsid3937599 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\cs17\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid2183088 1}}}{\cs17\insrsid3937599 \par }\pard \s16\ql \li0\ri360\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin360\lin0\itap0\pararsid3937599 {\insrsid3937599 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1 \widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8466191 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\ul\insrsid8466191\charrsid8466191 \line THE REPUBLI}{\b\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 C OF}{ \b\i\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 }{\b\ul\insrsid8466191\charrsid8466191 UGAND}{\b\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 A}{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 \line }{\b\ul\insrsid8466191\charrsid8466191 IN THE}{\b\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 COU}{ \b\ul\insrsid8466191\charrsid8466191 R}{\b\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 T}{\b\ul\insrsid8466191\charrsid8466191 OF APPEAL }{\b\ul\insrsid8466191 OF UGANDA}{\b\ul\insrsid2183088 \par }{\b\ul\insrsid8466191\charrsid8466191 HOLDEN }{\b\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 AT }{\b\ul\insrsid8466191 KAMPALA}{\insrsid8466191 \par \par }\pard \s15\ql \fi-1440\li1440\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid8466191 {\b\ul\insrsid8466191 CORAM:}{\insrsid8466191 \tab }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 HON. MR. JUSTICE C. M. KATO, J. A.; \line HON. LADY JUSTICE A. E. MPAGI-BAHIGEINE, J. A.; AND HON. MR. JUSTICE S. G. ENGWAU, J. A. }{\insrsid8466191 \par }\pard \s15\qc \fi-1440\li1440\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid8466191 {\b\ul\insrsid8466191 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 40 OF 1997 \par }{\b\insrsid8466191 BETWEEN}{\insrsid8466191 \par }\pard \s15\ql \fi-1440\li1440\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid8466191 {\insrsid3937599\charrsid13117596 ST.}{\b\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 }{ \insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 MARK EDUCATIONAL CENTRE LIMITED}{\insrsid8466191\charrsid8466191 ::}{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 ::}{\insrsid8466191\charrsid8466191 :::::::}{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 :::}{\insrsid8466191 ::::::::::::::::::}{ \insrsid8466191\charrsid8466191 :}{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 }{\insrsid8466191 APPELLANT \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 MA. KERERE UNIVERSITY: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : }{\insrsid8466191 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :}{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 :RESPONDENT \line }{\insrsid8466191 \par }\pard \s15\qc \fi-1440\li1440\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid8466191 {\b\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 (Appeal arising from the judgment and orders of Lugayizi J. in H. C}{ \b\insrsid8466191 . C. S No. 378/93 dated 4th Septem}{\b\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 ber, 1996). }{\b\insrsid8466191 \par }\pard \s15\ql \fi-1440\li1440\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid8466191 {\b\ul\insrsid8466191 JUDGEMENT OF }{\b\ul\insrsid8466191\charrsid8466191 ENGWAU}{\b\ul\insrsid8466191 . J. A.}{\b\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 \line }{\b\insrsid8466191 \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 This is an appeal against the judgment and Orders of Lug}{\insrsid8466191 ayizi J. in H. C. C. S. No. 378 of }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 1993, dated 4th September, 1996 whereby he made an order for eviction of the appellant from the suit land, the appellant and its tenants or agents were permanently restrained from occupying or building on the suit land; the appellant was ordered to pay Shs. 50,000/= in general damages for trespass on the suit land; titles on Plots 397 and 402 on the purported Kibuga Mailo Block 38 cancelled and the appellants ordered}{\insrsid5708452 to pay costs of the suit. \par }\pard \s15\ql \fi-1440\li1440\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5708452 {\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 The brief facts of the original}{\insrsid5708452 suit are as follows. In 1943, the respondent under a grant by the then Colonial Governor of }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 Uganda, was given the title to a}{\insrsid5708452 land under Freehold Volume 59 }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 Folio 21, comprising a chunk}{\insrsid5708452 of land where }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 Makerere University campus i}{\insrsid5708452 s, Mulago and Katanga Valley at }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 Wandegeya in Kampala. In 1990, one George Kalimu also acquired a land title on the same land under Kibuga Block 38, Plot No. 386. George Kalimu then sub-divided that Block 38 into 3 Plots namely: 387, 397 and 402. It was 5 acres in size carved from the r espondent\rquote s land under Freehold Volume 59 Folio 21. \line }{\insrsid5708452 \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 The appellant wanted to acquire land in the same area to develop 10 for its educational expansion}{\insrsid5708452\charrsid8466191 .}{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 On seeing an advertisement for}{\insrsid5708452 }{ \insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 proprietors to sell land in the area, George Kalimu offered to sell the 3 plots to the appellant. Before making any development on Plot 386 Block 38 Mulago/Makerere Valley, the appellant on 29/5/91 sought clarification on any interest the respondent might have on Plot 386, Block 38, (See letter Exb. P2 on page 116 of the reco rd). In reply, the respondent in a letter dated 30/5/91, intimated its future expansion of Makerere University on its suit land and pointed out that although Block 38 was zoned in the area but it did not include Plot 386. In t}{\insrsid5708452 he premises, the respondent }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 did not have any objection to the appellant\rquote s desire to develop Plot 386 Block 38, (See Exb P3 on page 117 of the record) }{\insrsid5708452 \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 In yet another bid, the appellant wrote another letter, exhibit P4, dated 23/5/91 in which they were asking the respondent to confirm to the Chief Town Planner that the appellant\rquote s plan did not conflict with the respondent\rquote s expansion programmes. The respondent replied vide exhibit PS, dated 17/6/91 that Plot 386 Block 38 Mulago/Makerere Valley was not on the list of Plots zoned for devel opment by the respondent. The respondent, \line 30 therefore, advised the appellant to take up the matter directly with the Chief Town Planner who after checking zoning plans would advise it accordingly. \line }{\insrsid5708452 \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 The appellant then consulted R. C. officials of the area and its lawyers who gave it a go-ahead. The appellant was then registered on 8/7/91 and 3/10/91 in respect of Plots 402 and 403 respectively. After the registration, the appellant}{\insrsid5708452 started }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 hearing complaints that they had bought air. The appellant again wr ote to the respondent for clarification and the reply exhibit Dl dated 12/2/92 stated clearly that according to record, numerous plots in Block 38 were zoned for the respondent but those did not include Plot 386. \line }{\insrsid5708452 \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 Thereafter, the appellant spent Ug. Shs 300m/= to develop the suit land. In 1993, the respondent sued the appellant three (3) years after the registration. The b}{\insrsid5708452 asis of their claim is that }{ \insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 the land was acquired illegally. Fraud had been committed outside the register. The learned trial Judge entered judgment}{\insrsid5708452 in favour of the respondent be}{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 c}{\insrsid5708452 a }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 use he did not want to encourage conmen to create non-existing land. Hence this appeal. \line }{\insrsid5708452 \par There are 5}{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 grounds of appeal, namely: }{\insrsid5708452 \par 1.\tab }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 \'93The Learned trial Judge erred when he held that there wa}{\insrsid5708452 s fraud in the creation of the }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 mailo plot}{\insrsid5708452 s the subject of this suit. \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 2. }{\insrsid5708452 \tab }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 The Learned trial Judge rightly held that the Appellant was not guilty of fraud but erred when he failed to hold that the Appellant was a }{\insrsid5708452 bona fide purchaser for value. \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 3. }{\insrsid5708452 \tab }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 The Learned trial Judge erred when he held that the Appel}{\insrsid5708452 lant had the burden to showing }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 that it was not}{ \insrsid5708452 only a bona fide purchaser }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 for value but also that the fraud which was committed by those from whom it too}{\insrsid5708452 k title, \line was committed on the Register. \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 4. }{\insrsid5708452 \tab }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 The Learned trial Judge erred when he warded the Respondent damages of U. Shs. 50,000/= (Uganda Shillings Fifty Thousand only) when he found that}{ \insrsid5708452 no loss had been sustained by }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 it. \line }{\insrsid5708452 \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 5. }{\insrsid5708452 \tab }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 The Learned trial Judge erred when he condemned the Appellants to costs after finding that the Appellant was not guilty of fraud or wrong doing. 1 \line }{ \insrsid5708452 \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 Mr. Edmund Wakida, learned Counsel for Appellant, argued grounds 1, 2, and 3 together. Learned Counsel contended that the learned }{\insrsid5708452 t}{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 rial Judge erred in finding that the Appellant was not a bona fide purchaser yet he had found that there was no fraud whatsoever attributed to the Appellant. According to Nasani Katungi, PW1, Jonathan Nyakhemura Tibisaasa, }{ \b\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 PW3 }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 and Dasani Kiwesi Kiwanuka, PW4, the fraud which was committed in this case, was not the type a purchaser or even his advocate could discover during an ordinary search at the Land Registry, as on the face of things, the respective titles for the plots in issue looked genuine. However, the learned trial Judge found that the appell ant did not commit the all}{\insrsid5708452 eged fraud but the original }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 owners of the plots in issue were responsible for the fraud. Having made that finding repeatedly and exonerating the appellant, learned Counsel for appellant was critical of the learned Judge\rquote s holding t hat the appellant was not a bona fide purchaser. In his view, the holdings of the learned trial Judge are difficult to reconcile. \line }{\insrsid5708452 \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 Nevertheless, learned Counsel maintained that the appellant remains and should remain a bona fide purchaser for value. The appellant looked beyond the registe}{\insrsid5708452 r both before and after the }{ \insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 registration. Under Section 145 R. T. A. the appellant need not look beyond the register and need not look into how George Kalimu one of the original owners of the plots in question, got his title . It was the contention of the learned Counsel that the appellant\rquote s title, therefore, could not be impeached because the appellant was not privy or party to the said fraud. To fortify his line of argument, learned Counsel for appellant relied on the authority of: }{\b\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid5708452 Andrea Lwanga}{ \ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 }{\b\ul\insrsid5708452\charrsid8466191 vs}{\b\ul\insrsid5708452 . Registrar of Titles [19801 H}{\b\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 CB }{\b\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid5708452 24}{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 in which it was held inter alia that according to S.189 R. T. A. the title of a bona fide purchaser for value could not be impeached since a person who was registered through fraud could pass a good title to a bona fide purchaser for value unless the purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser or was privy or party to the fraud. \line }{\insrsid2183999 \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 Further, learned Counsel for appellant submitted that the provisions of Sections 145 a}{\insrsid2183999 nd 189 R. T. A. do not permit }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 cancellatio n of title unless fraud is proved but this was not the case here. According to the learned trial Judge fraud was committed outside the register which means in effect that the appellant bought nothing from the purported sellers of Kibuga Mailo Block 38, Pl ots 387, 397 and 402. Learned Counsel for appellant, however, contended that fraud in the instant case was committed on the register and the register being Freehold Volume 59 Folio 21 from which another regi}{\insrsid2183999 ster of Kibuga Block 38, Plots }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 397, 402 and 403 was created and this register still exists. Therefore, according to the l}{\insrsid2183999 earned Counsel, there is no }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 justification on the part of the learned trial Judge to treat the original owners who sold the plots in issue to the appellant as conmen who sold air. \line }{\insrsid2183999 \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 In the alternative and without prejudice to the foregoing, it was also the contention of the learned Counsel for appellant t}{\insrsid2183999 hat the respondent having given }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 permissions including one after registration, the doctrine of estoppel comes into play. Even innocent misrepresentation could not help the respondent because their mistake was relied upon by the appellant. See: }{\b\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid2183999 Section}{\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 }{\b\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid2183999 113}{\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 }{\b\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid2183999 of}{\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 }{\b\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid2183999 the}{ \ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 }{\b\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid2183999 Evidence}{\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 }{\b\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid2183999 Act}{\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 . }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 Learned Counsel concluded, therefore, that the appellant be declared a bona fide purchaser for value and that grounds 1, 2, and 3 of this appeal should succeed. \line }{\insrsid2183999 \par }\pard \s15\ql \fi-1440\li1440\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid2183999 {\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 Mr. Yusuf Kagumire, learned Counsel for respondent, submitted that the land comprised in Freehold Register Volume 59 Folio 21 belonged to the respondent. Land comprised in Kibuga Block 38, Plots 387, 402 and 403 did not}{\insrsid2183999 belong to the respondent. The }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 respondent did not have any proprietary interest on the land comprised in Kibuga Block 38, Plots 387, 402 and 403. Any correspondence from the respondent to the appellant which was desirous of developing those plots clearly pointed out the limit of its interest on the matter. The question of estoppel or innocent misrepresentation did not arise. In his unchallenged evidence, PW3 testified that in Folio 21, Plot 387 was not in the register not even Plot 402. The witne ss clearly stated that George Kalimu did not own land and }{\insrsid2183999 whatever he claimed to have }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 owned was bogus. In the Freehold register there was no transfer to the appellant. Those plots were carved from the respondent\rquote s land. It could not have been possible to create Mailo in 1990\rquote s and it is not possible to create Mailo out of Freehold land. There was no titles out of which these plots were created. The Freehold and the Mailo land cannot in law and fact exist side by side. If there are 2 titles in respect of one piece of land the one which came first prevails. \line }{\insrsid2183999 \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 Learned Counsel for the respondent further pointed out that the 20 evidence of PW4 also supported that of PW3 in that Plots 397 and 402 fall outside Kibuga Block}{\insrsid2183999 }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 38. According to PW5, Plots 397 and 402 did not exist as Mailo land because they fall outside Kibuga Block 38. It was the contention of the learned Counsel for respondent that the learned trial Judge rightly found that there was fraud in the creation of the Mailo land. The Mailo Land was carved wi thin the Freehold Volu}{\insrsid2183999 m}{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 e 59 Folio 21. Those plots were outside the Freehold land and they were also outside Kibuga Block 38. In the premises, the titles allegedly obtained by the appellant did not belong t}{\insrsid2183999 o Kibuga Block 38 nor in the}{ \insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 land of the respondent but were bogus and fictitious in between hanging in the air. \line }{\insrsid2183999 \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 In their testimonies PW3 and PW4 said that in 1990 no creation of Mailo land could happen. Last certificates of Mailo l}{\insrsid2183999 and were created in the 1920\rquote s. }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 Therefore, fraud was committed when the Mailo land was superimposed on the Freehold land of the resp}{\insrsid2183999 ondent. Learned Counsel for the respondent, therefore, }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 submitted that the appellant was a non-starter who was not a bona fide purchaser for nothing. The fac t that the learned trial Judge held that the appellant was not guilty of fraud in itself does not make the appellant a bona fide purchaser on the land of the respondent. The respondent does not own Kibuga Block 38 from which Plots 397, 402 and 403 were cr eated. Even if the learned trial Judge had held that the appellant was bona fide purchaser of those plots that would not interfere with the proprietary interest which the respondent has in }{\insrsid2183999 Freehold Volume 59 Folio 21 }{ \insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 since 1943. The learned Counsel submitte d that the appellant cannot invoke the provisions of Section 189 R. T. A. to protect nothing. Conmen should not be allowed to sell or own land parallel to that owned by a registered proprietor. The appellant was dealing with a person not on the register and it was incumbent upon the appellant to prove that that person was a registered proprietor. See: }{\b\ul\insrsid2183999\charrsid2183999 David Sej}{\b\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid2183999 aaka Vs Rebecca Musoke, civil Appeal No. 12 of 1985 [1992) 5 KALR 132. }{\b\insrsid3937599\charrsid2183999 \line }{\b\insrsid2183999 \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 In conclusion, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that 20 grounds 1, 2, and 3 must fail. \line }{\insrsid2183999 \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 There is an overwhelming evidence to the effect that the respondent is the registered proprietor of land comprised in Freehold Register Volume 59 Folio 21. His Excellency the Governor of Uganda gave the respondent this land since 194 3. The respondent does not own Kibuga Block 38 from which plots 397, 402 and 403 were created in 1990. In that year no creation of Mailo land could happen. Last certificates of Mailo land were created in the }{\insrsid2183999\charrsid8466191 1920s. }{ \insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 The learned trial Judg}{\insrsid2183999 e rightly, in my view, held }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 that fraud here was committed when the Mailo land was superimposed on the Freehold land of the respondent in 1990 by the original owners of those plots in question. The fraud committed was not the type a purchaser or even his advocate could discov er during an ordinary search at the registry. In the circumstances, the learned trial Judge correctly found that the original owners of Plots 397, 402 and 403 were responsible for the fraud and thereby exonerating the appellant. }{\insrsid2183999 \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 Nevertheless, the learned trial Judge rightly, in my view, held that the appellant is not a bona fide purchaser for value of the plots in issue on the ground that those plots fall outside Kibuga Block 38 upon which the respondent has no proprietary interest at all. Those plots wer e carved from the respondent\rquote s Freehold land. The appellant was dealing with a person not on the register and it was the appellant\rquote s duty to prove that the person it was dealing with wa}{\insrsid2183999 s a registered proprietor. The }{ \insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 appellant bought air from the purpor}{\insrsid2183999 ted sellers of Kibuga Block }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 38 plots 387, 397 and 402. T}{\insrsid2183999 he appellant cannot invoke the }{ \insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 provisions of Section 189 R. T. A. to protect nothing. Fraud in \line the instant case was committed on}{\insrsid2183999 the register and the register }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 being Freehold Register Volume }{ \insrsid2183999 59 Folio 21 from which another }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 register of Kibuga Block}{\insrsid2183999 38 Plots 397, 402 and 403 was }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 purportedly created. In my view the provisions of Section 145 and 189 R. T. A. permit the cancellation of those alleged titles. \line }{\insrsid2183999 \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 It is evident that the respondent does not own Kibuga Block 38 from which Plots 397, 402 and 4}{\insrsid2183999 03 were created. Even if the}{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 learned trial Judge had held that}{ \insrsid2183999 the appellant was a bona fide }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 purchaser of the said plots tha}{\insrsid2183999 t would not interfere with the }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 proprietary interest which the res}{\insrsid2183999 pondent has in Freehold Volume }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 59 Folio 21 since 1943. In the premises I would disallow grounds \line 1, 2 and 3 of this appeal. \line }{\insrsid2183999 \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 In ground 4, learned Counsel for the}{\insrsid2183999 appellant submitted that the }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 learned trial Judge found as a fac}{\insrsid2183999 t that the appellant committed }{ \insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 the alleged trespass innocen}{\insrsid2183999 tly and that there was no loss }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 suffered by the respondent. In th}{\insrsid2183999 e circumstances, it was his }{ \insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 contention that the learned trial }{\insrsid2183999 Judge did not exercise his }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 discretion judicially when he awarded a nominal sum of \line Shs.50}{\insrsid2183999\charrsid8466191 , 000}{ \insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 /= to the responden}{\insrsid2183999 t who suffered no loss for the }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 alleged trespass. Learned Counse}{\insrsid2183999 l for appellant urged Court to }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 interfere with the award of Shs. 50,000/= as ge}{\insrsid2183999 neral damages in }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 trespass yet the learned Judge had }{\insrsid2183999 found as a fact that there was }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 no loss suffered by the respon}{\insrsid2183999 dent. In his view, the learned }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 trial Judge acted upon wrong pr}{\insrsid2183999 inciple of law warranting this }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 court to interfere with the said award of general damages for trespass. Learned Counsel relied on the authority of }{\b\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid2183999 Associated Architects Vs Christine Nazziwa, Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1981; [1985] HCB 25.}{ \ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 \line }{\insrsid2183999 \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 Mr. Kanyemebwa assisting Yusuf Kagumire for the respondent responded to the above submissions as follows: Learned Counsel submitted that the learned trial Judge awarded only nominal damages vis-avis general damag}{ \insrsid4798843 es in trespass. In awarding }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 nominal damages, according to the Counsel, no loss was to be proved but it was an award against a legal right which has been infringed. See: }{ \b\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid4798843 The Mediana [1900] AC 113, and Harvey McGregor,}{\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 }{\b\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid4798843 McGregor on damages, 13th Ed. 1972 at page 297.}{\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 }{ \insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 In the instant case, the appellant had trespassed on the land of the respondent and in that way the appellant had infringed the respondent\rquote s legal right over the Freehold lan}{\insrsid4798843 d comprised in Volume 59 Folio }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 21. Therefore, the learned trial Judge was right in awarding nominal damages. I agree. This ground o}{\insrsid4798843 f appeal should also fail. \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 Last but not least, in ground 5, learned Counsel for appe}{\insrsid4798843 llant argued that the appellant }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 was condemned to pay costs of the suit and yet it was not guilty of fraud or any wrong doi ng. There was even an estoppel on the matter, so according to him, the learned trial Judge had exercised his discretion unjudicially. In his view, this is one of those circumstances when each party should have bone his own costs. See:}{ \b\insrsid3937599\charrsid4798843 }{\b\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid4798843 Uganda Transport Company Limited Vs Outa, Civil Appeal No. 11/81; [1985] HCB 27. }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 In the alternative, the respondent could have got a remedy of }{ \insrsid4798843 damages }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 against the Uganda Land Commission (TJLC). See: }{\b\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid4798843 Section 186 R. T. A}{\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 or the original proprietors but unfortuna}{\insrsid4798843 tely they were not joined as co-}{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 defendants. \line }{\insrsid4798843 \par }\pard \s15\ql \fi-1440\li1440\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4798843 {\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 Learned Counsel for respondent reacted that the question of whether the appellant was involved in the alleged fraud or not is irrelevant to the award of costs. Under Section 27 Civil Procedure Act, costs should follow}{\insrsid4798843 the event. It should be noted }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 that the appellant has not disputed the quantum of costs. The doctrine of estoppel does not arise here the trial Court having found that the respondent was the successful party. Outa\rquote s case (supra) is distinguishable in that costs were n ot awarded because they were not applied for, but on appeal it was held that by reason that the appellant did not apply for costs was not good reason to deny him costs. In the instant case, the respondent was successful and as no reason was given it shoul d not be denied costs. }{\insrsid4798843 \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 It is trite law that a successful party should be entitled to costs. In this case, the respondent was the successful party in the High Court and it was granted costs of the suit. I have no justification in law or otherwise to interfe re with that exercise of the discretion of the original court. I find no merit in ground 5 of the appeal. \line }{\insrsid4798843 \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 In the result, I would dismiss this appeal with costs here and in the cour}{\insrsid4798843 t below to the respondent. \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8466191 {\insrsid4798843 Dated at Kampala this 20}{\super\insrsid4798843\charrsid4798843 th}{\insrsid4798843 day of November }{ \insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 1998. \line \line }{\insrsid4798843 S. G. ENG}{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 WAU \line }{\b\ul\insrsid4798843 JUSTICE OF APPEAL}{\i\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 }{\i\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 \line }{ \insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 \line }{\insrsid4798843 \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4798843 {\b\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid4798843 JUDGMENT OF C. M. KATO, J. A.}{\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 }{ \insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 \line I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of Engwau J. A. in draft. I agree with }{\insrsid4798843 it in total. The learned trial }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 Judge was justified in en}{\insrsid4798843 tering judgment in favour of the }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 respondent. }{\insrsid2183088 \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 Since Mpagi-Bahigeine, }{\insrsid4798843 J. A. also agrees, this appeal is}{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 accordingly dismissed with costs of this appeal and in the court below to the respondent. \line }{ \insrsid4798843 \par }\pard \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4798843 {\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 C .}{\insrsid4798843 M. KA}{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 TO \line }{ \ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 JUSTICE OF APPEAL}{\ul\insrsid3937599 \par }{\insrsid4798843 20/11/98}{\insrsid4798843\charrsid4798843 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8466191 {\ul\insrsid4798843 \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par }{\b\ul\insrsid4798843\charrsid2183088 JUDGMENT OF A. E. MPAGI-BAH}{\b\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid2183088 IGEINE}{\b\ul\insrsid4798843\charrsid2183088 , J. A}{\b\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid2183088 . }{\b\insrsid4798843\charrsid2183088 \par }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 I agree with the judgment of Engwau}{\insrsid4798843\charrsid8466191 , J. A}{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 . }{\insrsid6953789 \par Dated at Kampala this 20}{\super\insrsid6953789 th }{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 day of }{\insrsid6953789 November}{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 .l998. \line }{\insrsid6953789 \par }\pard \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6953789 {\insrsid6953789 A. E. Mpagi-Bahige}{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 ine \line }{\ul\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 JUSTICE OF APPE}{\ul\insrsid6953789 AL}{\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8466191 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\insrsid3937599\charrsid8466191 \par }{\insrsid10825639\charrsid8466191 \par }}