A caveat under the Registration of Titles Act serves as temporary protection and cannot subsist indefinitely without an active and bona fide claim. High Court at Luwero Reaffirms.
- Waboga David
- Oct 7
- 3 min read
FACTS
The Applicants, Nanfuka Alice and Kyobe Wilson, were the duly appointed administrators of the estate of the late Nakyeyune Lovinsa, the registered proprietor of land comprised in Buruli Block 71 Plot 13 at Kyamukama.
A one Nafutali Kyamuhangire had lodged a caveat (Instrument No. LUW-00003947) on 18 February 2020, claiming an interest in the same land. He, together with Kizza Bogere Chris, subsequently filed Civil Suit No. HCT-17-LD-CS-0230-2022 against the late proprietor, which was later dismissed.
The Applicants sought court orders for the removal of the caveat, arguing that the Respondents had no subsisting legal or equitable interest in the land.
The Respondents opposed the application, asserting that they retained a legitimate claim pending adjudication in a fresh suit (HCMC No. 149 of 2025).
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Whether the Respondents demonstrated a sufficient legal or equitable interest to justify the continued existence of the caveat on the suit land.
Whether the caveat lodged under Instrument No. LUW-00003947 should be vacated.
LEGAL REPRESENTATION
For the Applicants, M/s Balyejjusa & Co. Advocates
For the Respondents, M/s Kasangaki & Co. Advocates
SUBMISSIONS
Applicants’ Submissions
Counsel for the Applicants argued that the Applicants, as registered proprietors, held indefeasible title under Section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act (RTA). The Respondents’ prior civil suit (No. 230 of 2022) having been dismissed, any claim or protection conferred by the caveat ceased to exist. The caveat had subsisted unjustifiably for over five years, contrary to authorities such as Maria Saliwako v Mulumba Segantebuka (Misc. Cause No. 335 of 2023) and Segirinya Gerald v Mutebi Innocent (HCMA No. 81 of 2016). Citing Boyes v Gathure [1969] EA 385 and Ali Sidi Ngarukiye v Muyonga Andrew Mubiru (Misc. Cause No. 31 of 2018), Counsel argued that a caveat is a temporary measure and cannot subsist indefinitely without an active legal claim.
Respondents’ Submissions
Counsel for the Respondents contended that under Section 139 of the RTA, any person claiming a legal or equitable interest may lodge a caveat to preserve their rights. The caveat was lawfully lodged to protect an equitable interest derived from prior dealings and possession. The earlier suit was dismissed procedurally, not substantively, and a new suit (HCMC No. 149 of 2025) had been filed to reassert the Respondents’ claim. Removing the caveat before that case is determined would prejudice their rights and undermine the principle of maintaining the status quo pending adjudication.
COURT’S FINDINGS
Justice Ntambi found that Under Section 123 of the RTA, only persons with a demonstrable legal or equitable interest may lodge a caveat. Mere allegations of interest are insufficient. The Applicants are registered proprietors of the land, and their title enjoys statutory protection under Section 59 of the RTA. The Respondents failed to produce documentary evidence (such as a sale agreement or lease) to substantiate their alleged interest. The court emphasized that bare assertions do not constitute a “caveatable interest.” Citing Rutungo Properties Ltd v Linda Harriet Carrington & Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2010), the judge held that a caveat is akin to an interlocutory injunction and cannot subsist indefinitely without active pursuit of the underlying claim. The caveat had been in existence since 2020, while the related suit was dismissed in 2022, and no substantive proceedings had been diligently prosecuted since.
HOLDING
The Court held that the Respondents failed to establish any legal or equitable interest in the suit land to justify maintaining the caveat. Accordingly:
The caveat registered as Instrument No. LUW-00003947 over land comprised in Buruli Block 71, Plot 13, Nabiswera Sub-county, Nakasongola District was ordered to be vacated forthwith.
The Registrar of Titles was directed to remove the caveat immediately.
The Applicants were awarded costs of the application.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
A caveat under the Registration of Titles Act serves as temporary protection and cannot subsist indefinitely without an active and bona fide claim.
The burden of proof lies on the caveator to establish a prima facie legal or equitable interest in the land.
Registered proprietorship under Section 59 RTA constitutes conclusive evidence of ownership, barring fraud.
Dismissal of an underlying suit extinguishes any protection previously afforded by a caveat.
Courts will not permit passive litigants to use caveats as tools to frustrate the rights of registered owners.
Diligence and prompt prosecution of the substantive claim are critical to maintaining a caveat.
Read the full case
.jpg)
