High Court clarifies that a caveat may be maintained where the caveator demonstrates a legitimate, arguable interest in the land and has instituted timely proceedings to assert that claim.
- Waboga David
- Sep 1
- 2 min read
Introduction
Caveats remain one of the most effective tools for protecting proprietary claims in land disputes. The High Court of Uganda has once again clarified the principles guiding the removal of caveats under the Registration of Titles Act (RTA). In this ruling, the Court emphasized that a caveat may be maintained where the caveator demonstrates a legitimate, arguable interest in the land and has instituted timely proceedings to assert that claim.
Facts
The Applicant, Multi Consults Designs Ltd, is the registered proprietor of land comprised in FRV KCCA Folio 19, Plot 47–55 at Ntinda, Kampala.
The 1st Respondent, National Housing and Construction Co. Ltd (NHCC), lodged a caveat over the property claiming a leasehold interest and alleging fraud in the Applicant’s acquisition.
The Applicant sought removal of the caveat, arguing that NHCC had no legal or equitable interest in the land and that the caveat obstructed its ability to develop the land, which had previously been decommissioned as a wetland by NEMA.
The Respondent countered that:
It had already filed a pending suit in the High Court (HCCS No. 408 of 2025) challenging the Applicant’s title.
The caveat was justified as it served to protect its claim pending determination of the main suit.
Issue
Whether the caveat lodged by the 1st Respondent should be vacated/removed.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court dismissed the application and ordered that the caveat (Instrument No. KCCA-0015483) remain in place.
The Court emphasized that a caveat provides temporary protection to the caveator’s claimed interest; it is not intended to be indefinite but subsists only until the substantive dispute is resolved, as noted in Boynes v Gather (1969) EA 385.
Furthermore, the Court reiterated that removal of a caveat requires a careful balancing of competing interests and must be exercised with judicial discretion, guided by the justice of the case (Eng Mee Young v Letchumanan [1980] AC 331). As the Court observed, “it is trite that in an application of such a nature courts will consider the justice of the case to ascertain whether to vacate the caveat or not.”
Threshold for maintaining a caveat: The caveator must show:
Existence of sufficient grounds;
A pending suit instituted in time; and
That the balance of convenience favors maintaining the caveat (Rutungu Properties Ltd v Carrington, CA 61 of 2010).
In this case the 1st Respondent had already instituted HCCS No. 408 of 2025 challenging the Applicant’s ownership. The Court found that this pending suit raised substantive questions about title and fraud, making it just to preserve the caveat.
“It’s trite that in an application of such a nature courts will consider the justice of the case to ascertain whether to vacate the caveat or not, I am of the finding that the justice of this case and the balance of convenience would in my opinion require that the caveat lodged by the 1st respondent vide instrument number KCCA-0015483 be maintained.”
Holding
The Court dismissed the application and ordered that the caveat (Instrument No. KCCA-0015483) remain in place. No order as to costs was made.
Key Legal Principle
A caveat is more likely to be maintained where the caveator has filed a substantive claim challenging the caveatee’s title.
Read the full decision
.jpg)
