High Court establishes that, in the absence of fraud, a donor cannot reclaim registered land merely because its use has changed unless express conditions were attached to the donation and breached.
- Sylivia Nandawula
- Jun 15
- 5 min read
Case summary for Magolo & Another v The Howe Christian Charitable Trust Ltd & OthersHigh Court of Uganda at Mbale, Civil Suit No. 0063 of 2017 | [2025] UGHC 408
Date of Decision: 10th June 2025
Presiding Judge: Hon. Justice Lubega Farouq
Area of Law: Land Law, Trust Law, Property, and Civil Procedure
Legal Representation
Plaintiffs
Magolo Peter & Another, represented by M/S Wanambugo & Co. Advocates.
Defendants
Howe Christian Charitable Trust Ltd & Others, represented by M/S Kalanda & Co. Advocates.
Summarised by
Sylivia Nandawula
Introduction
The High Court reaffirms the principle of indefeasibility of title under the Registration of Titles Act, emphasizing that once land is duly registered, the title of the registered proprietor is conclusive and can only be impeached by fraud or a registered condition subsequent. This means that legal ownership cannot be challenged merely on the basis of prior informal arrangements or equitable claims unless such claims are legally documented and registered against the title.
The Court further held that in cases of charitable donations, a donor cannot reclaim land simply because its use has changed, unless the donation was made subject to expressly attached legal conditions, which were later breached. Absent such conditions, the court found that trustees retain discretion to manage and even lease trust property, provided that the core objectives of the trust, such as religious or educational use, are not abandoned.
Leasing parts of the land, therefore, does not in itself amount to a misuse of trust property if the primary purpose is still being fulfilled.
Moreover, the Court clarified that tenants lawfully occupying land under a lease from a registered proprietor cannot be classified as trespassers. Since their entry and occupation were based on legal authority, the claim of trespass by the donors was dismissed.
In conclusion, the Court underscored that donors have no legal remedy to reclaim land that has been validly transferred and registered in the absence of proven fraud or clearly documented and enforceable conditional terms attached to the original donation.
Background of the Case
In 1991, the plaintiffs, Magolo Peter and his late father, donated land for use as a church and school, to be administered by the Missionary Church of Uganda, now part of the Howe Christian Charitable Trust Ltd (1st Defendant).
The plaintiffs alleged that the land had been diverted from its original charitable purpose and leased out to private individuals (2nd to 5th Defendants).
They sought cancellation of the certificate of title, recovery of land, mesne profits, and eviction of the alleged trespassers.
Legal Issues Raised
1. Whether the land belonged to the plaintiffs.
2. Whether the land was donated to the 1st Defendant for specific use (church/school).
3. Whether the 1st Defendant diverted the land contrary to the donation’s terms.
4. Whether the 2nd–5th Defendants were trespassers.
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought.
Issues for Determination & Court’s Analysis
Issue 1: Whether the land belonged to the plaintiffs.
The land was originally part of Plot 42–46, Busiu. The 1st Defendant was lawfully registered as owner in 1992 (Title Exhibit D.2)(Para 15-17). Once registered, under Section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act, the 1st Defendant obtained indefeasible title.
The Court relied on the case of Lwanga v Registrar of Titles & Others (1970) EA 172 stating that “registration of title confers conclusive ownership unless fraud is proven”. Court ruled that Registration confers ownership, and donation even if initially informal cannot override registered title unless there was a condition (like a reversionary clause), which did not exist here.
Equitable claims or interests such as those arising from Unregistered trust intentions or charitable exceptions must yield to the rights of a bonafide purchaser for value, and cannot defeat a registered title unless backed by registered instruments or fraud is proved as per the case of Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank & Others, SCCA 4/2006.
The issue was answered in negative.
Issue 2: Whether the land was donated to the 1st Defendant for specific use (church/school).
The Plaintiffs claimed the land was donated for church/school use but the Defendants argued there was no condition on the certificate of title reflecting this purpose (Para 4–5).
The Court acknowledged the plaintiffs’ good intentions but stated donation without express conditional terms or trust declaration on the title cannot limit use.
Hence without legal registration of the trust condition, or any specific detailed evidence for the donation usage, courts cannot enforce informal donor expectations.
The issue was answered in negative.
Issue 3: Whether the 1st Defendant diverted the land contrary to the donation’s terms.
The Court found that although the land was being leased, part of it still housed the church and school (Para 10-12).
The Court referred to the Trust laws on the roles of Trustees, accordingly, Trustees have discretion in managing land, and leasing doesn’t inherently violate the purpose if core functions remain intact (Para 18-23).
The 1st Defendant had the discretion to lease trust land to support its sustainability, provided the original trust purpose was not abandoned.
The issue was answered in the affirmative.
Issue 4: Whether the 2nd–5th Defendants were trespassers.
As the 1st Defendant leased the land to the 2nd–5th Defendants as a legal owner and by virtue of the 1st Defendant being the registered proprietor and leased the land to them, their occupation was lawful.
The Court ruled that Lawful tenants under a legal owner cannot be labeled trespassers.
The issue was answered in negative.
Issue 5: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought.
The Plaintiffs failed to prove fraud, breach of condition, or reversionary rights, no reliefs could be granted. The Court relied on the case Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank & Others, SCCA 4/2006 stating the importance of proving fraud or illegality to challenge registered title, however, based on the evaluation of evidence, no evidence proved fraud on the side of the 1st Defendant and other defendants.
The Court stated that a title is only indefeasible if fraud is proved, failure of which it indefeasible, highlighting the case of Kampala District Land Board & Another v Venansio Babweyana, SCCA 2/2007, hence the Plaintiff’s prayer for cancellation of the Title by Court was dismissed.
The issue was answered in negative.
Court Ruling
The court held that:
a) The land is lawfully owned by the 1st Defendant, having acquired indefeasible title.
b) The plaintiffs’ donation did not carry legally enforceable conditions subsequent.
c) Leasing parts of the land did not amount to abandonment of its charitable use.
d) Defendants 2–5 were not trespassers, being tenants under the legal title holder.
e) All claims by the plaintiffs were dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendants.
Conclusion
This decision reinforces the sanctity of registered title under Uganda’s land law regime and clarifies the limited legal remedies available to donors in the absence of documented and registered conditions. It serves as a critical reminder to donors and trustees alike to formalize charitable intentions through legal instruments, especially when dealing with land.
Read more
.jpg)
Comments