Legal Alert: The Court of Appeal of Uganda holds

that in land transactions, a search on the register

is enough before a transfer can effected

1
Search on the register at the land offices is in itself enough.
Namara Musinguzi and Company Advocates
 A search on the register at the Land Offices is enough: Attorney
General V Henley Property Developers Limited (Civil Appeal 421 of
Attention!
2021) [2023] UGCA 1 (09 January 2023)
Under the Torrens
system of land Background to the case.
registration, the The Appellants appealed against the judgement and decree of Wamala J
register is in HCCS No.747 of 2016, wherein they were sued by the Respondent
seeking for compensation from them due to the acts of his agent, the
everything and
Registrar at Mukono Land Office, that had led the Appellants to suffer
that except in financial loss (loss of the purchase price of the suit land it had paid to the
cases of actual vendors) that was premised on the cancellation of its title on grounds
fraud on part of that a freehold title, in relation to the suit land, had prior been issued to
the person dealing Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited(SCOUL). The Respondent claimed
for payment of adequate compensation, special damages and lost
with the registered
earnings, general damages, interest and costs of the suit arising as a
proprietor,such result of cancellation of their certificate of title and the trial court granted
person, upon the same.
registration of title Prior to purchasing the said land, the Respondent conducted three
has indefeasible searches on the register at the Mukono District Land Office, and was
title against the given search reports that confirmed that indeed the vendors were the
whole world. owners of the said land. They went ahead and concluded the purchase of
the land and paid UGX 6,097,200,000/=. The Respondent went ahead and
got registered as the owner of the said land.
Three years after being registered as the owner of the said land, the
Respondent received a notification from the Commissioner Land
Registration (CLR) of her intention to cancel its certificate of title on
grounds that it had been issued in error. On 5 th September, 2016, the CLR
cancelled the said certificate of title. The Respondent subsequently sued
the Appellant because they were aggrieved by the cancellation. One of
the contentions of the Appellants in opposition of the suit was that; the
Respondent should have done a physical search on the said land as it
would have helped them discover that the land was already owned by
someone else.
The trial Judge decided the suit in favour of the Respondent. He held that
the Respondent had exercised sufficient due diligence by obtaining a
search report from the Mukono District land Office. His Lordship further
held that information on the register is always correct. The appellant
being dissatisfied with the judgement appealed to the Court of Appeal on
five grounds.

2
Search on the register at the land offices is in itself enough.
Namara Musinguzi and Company Advocates
Ruling of the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal in agreeing with the Trial Court observed that under the Torrens system, the register is
everything, except in cases of actual fraud on the part of the person dealing with the registered proprietor,
such person upon registration of title has indefeasible title against the whole world. As such, a certificate of
title is indefeasible except on the ground of fraud, which in this case was not proved. The court further held in
agreement with the Trial Judge that assurance is granted to a registered proprietor of land by virtue of the
operation of the Torrens system of registration. Security under this system of title is based on four principles
which are; indefeasibility (cannot be impeached); registration (title is by registration); the curtain principle
abolition of notice or exhaustive inquiry; and assurance (compensation upon detrimental reliance).

Court further observed that the registrar guarantees the accuracy of all the particulars contained on the
register and that the register is conclusive evidence of ownership and thus, there is no need to search
behind or beyond the certificate of title to ensure proven ownership of the land. Once a person is given
such assurance by the custodian of the Land Register, as was the case herein, should such information turn
out to be false, a party who has relied upon it to their detriment has a cause of action against the giver of such
information irrespective of whether the action or omission of the Registrar was negligent or simply
erroneous. Therefore, the Court of Appeal agreed with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal
as it was with no merit.

Case decided on the same principle

Kilama V Laker and Ors (Civil Appeal 21 of 2017) [2020] UGHC 171 (27 February 2020)

In this case, His Lordship Stephen Mubiru was elaborate in explaining the “curtain” and “mirror” principles as
was in the Court of appeal in the earlier discussed case. He went ahead to observe that; the three fundamental
principles which underlie the title registration system and generally accepted are: the mirror principle (that
the register reflects accurately and completely all of the current facts material to the title); the curtain
principle (that the register is the sole source of information necessary to the purchaser. The register contains
all information about the title, historical search behind the registers to verify that the title is good is
unnecessary); and the insurance principle (that anyone who suffers a loss should be compensated.
Compensation is for loss of rights if there are errors made by the Registrar of Titles about the validity or
accuracy of title).

Relevant provisions of the Registration of Titles Act, Cap 230

This decision affirms the provisions of the Registration of Titles Act, Cap 230 particularly Sections 59
and 176 respectively which provide that production of a certificate of title in the name of the registered
owner is sufficient proof of ownership of the land except on proof of fraud or illegality.

3
Search on the register at the land offices is in itself enough.
Namara Musinguzi and Company Advocates
 Effect of the Court’s ruling

In as much as the Register of titles has been “called to alert” by the Court of Appeal, the flipside of this ruling is
that in as much as it states the principle of the law as laid down in the Registration of Titles Act, it presents
some complications some of which include; ignoring the physical search which is also a very key step in doing
due diligence when it comes to land transactions. A physical search is extremely important as one is able to
know the actual status on the land by interviewing the neighbors or people you may find occupying the land;
something that a search on the register may not be able to reveal. In underscoring the importance of a physical
search in addition to a search on the register, the Court of Appeal, in the case of Sir John Bagaine Vs Ausi
Matovu CACA 7/96 (29.10.98 at Kampala From HCCS 878/94 at Kampala) held that: lands are not
vegetables, which are bought from unknown sellers. Lands are very valuable properties and buyers are expected
to make thorough investigations not only of the land but also of the owner before purchase. Therefore, a physical
search on the land is as important as the search on the register.

Concluding Observations.
Land is one of the most precious and valuable things one can own and it is therefore prudent that in addition to
conducting a search on the register, a prospective buyer should still carry out an additional due diligence of a
physical search. This in our opinion, shall go a long way in reducing on land disputes in the country.

14th January 2023

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: No information contained in this alert should be construed as legal advice from Namara Musinguzi & Co. Advocates or the
individual authors, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter

Namara Musinguzi & Co Advocates

Who we are
Namara Musinguzi & Co. Advocates is a boutique law firm. At Namara Musinguzi & Co. Advocates, we meet the need for
the provision of legal services that are transcendently excellent, meticulous, solution oriented and delivered on time.
The firm has an extensive and vast knowledge in areas of corporate and compliance practices and on other legal areas
including but not limited to employment matters, arbitration, banking and litigation. The firm provides legal services
with solutions tailor made for each client.

Ann Namara Musinguzi

Managing Partner, Namara Musinguzi & Co. Advocates ann@namaramusinguziadvocates.com

Anita Ainomugisha
Legal Associate, Namara Musinguzi & Co. Advocates anita@namaramusinguziadvocates.com

Our contacts
Namara Musinguzi & Co. Advocates
Kanti Mansion, Plot 31 Kira Road
First floor Office 1G
P.O Box 500201,
Kampala-Uganda.
Email: info@namaramusinguziadvocates.com

4
Search on the register at the land offices is in itself enough.
Namara Musinguzi and Company Advocates