The CoA establishes that procedural defects or administrative lapses by government entities do not amount to fraud in the absence of clear, direct evidence that the registered proprietor was complicit
- Waboga David
- Jun 14
- 5 min read
The Court of Appeal establishes that procedural defects or administrative lapses by government entities do not amount to fraud in the absence of clear, direct evidence that the registered proprietor was complicit or acted dishonestly. Moreover, trespass can arise from invalid entry based on faulty administrative processes: entering land based on a later-cancelled court order or lease offer does not confer lawful possession where another party holds a valid title.
Coram : Asa Mugenyi, JA/ JCC, Musa Ssekaana, JA/JCC, Stella Alibateese, JA/JCC
Representation
The appellants were represented by Mr. Eric Muhwezi and Mr. Atwine Muhwezi, while the respondent was represented by Mr. Nuwagira Gerald, Mr. Asiimwe Davis Barigye, and Mr. Agaba James.
Introduction
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal challenging the High Court’s decision that affirmed the respondent’s title to land and ordered the cancellation of lease offers issued to the appellants.
The appellant alleged a failure by the trial judge to find fraud in the respondent's acquisition of a certificate of title.
The Court reaffirmed its duty as a first appellate court to re-evaluate evidence but found no basis to fault the trial court’s findings where allegations of fraud were speculative, unparticularized, and not directly attributable to the respondent.
The appeal was dismissed on all three grounds, with the Court finding no merit in allegations of fraud, trespass claims, or challenges to the award of damages and costs.
Background
This matter concerned a land dispute over approximately 777 hectares registered in the name of the respondent. The appellants alleged that the respondent fraudulently acquired his certificate of title and leasehold interest, citing irregularities in documentation, use of an incorrect deed plan (I/S 20516-LB/4029), absence of survey records, and a lack of ministerial consent under the Public Lands Act.
The trial court found that any administrative lapses or irregularities in the land titling process were attributable to public officers, not the respondent. The appellants challenged this finding on appeal.
Holding
The Court of Appeal restated its core duty under Rule 30(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules to reappraise the evidence presented in the trial court and arrive at its own conclusions. Drawing on the Supreme Court precedent in Kiiramutne Henry v Uganda (SCCA No. 10 of 1997), the Court emphasized that while it must reevaluate the evidence afresh, it must not do so in isolation or complete disregard of the findings and reasoning of the trial judge. Instead, its reappraisal must be careful and measured, with due regard to the reasoning of the lower court.
On the issue of fraud, the Court reiterated the well-established legal principle that fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Citing J.S.R. Kazoora v M.L.S. Rukuba and Frederick Zaabwe v Orient Bank, the Court reaffirmed that allegations of fraud carry a high evidentiary threshold and cannot be inferred lightly.
Furthermore, consistent with the holding in Kampala District Land Board v Venansio Babweyaka, the Court underscored that for a claim of fraud to succeed, it must be attributable to the transferee (the person who acquired title), either through their direct actions or through the conduct of others acting with their knowledge or participation.
In the present case, the Court found no such evidence. The respondent had duly followed the procedural requirements for acquiring a leasehold interest in land: applying for a lease, paying the requisite fees, and ultimately obtaining a certificate of title from the Uganda Land Commission.
While the appellants raised concerns about administrative irregularities, such as missing survey records or unsigned lease offer documents, the Court concluded that these were institutional oversights on the part of public authorities and not fraudulent actions by the respondent.
Significantly, the Ministry of Lands and the Uganda Land Commission later verified and affirmed the validity of the respondent’s title and the survey that underpinned it. This official confirmation effectively rebutted the fraud allegations raised by the appellants. Moreover, the appellants failed to provide any pleadings that set out the specific dates, actions, or intent required to establish that the respondent had acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
As a result, the Court dismissed the first ground of appeal, finding it devoid of merit. It held that procedural defects or administrative lapses by government entities do not amount to fraud in the absence of clear, direct evidence that the registered proprietor was complicit or acted dishonestly.
The Court reaffirmed that the evidentiary burden in proving fraud is high and must be discharged with precision, which the appellants in this case had failed to do.
Court’s Analysis
Ground 1: Alleged Fraud in Acquisition of Title
Appellants' Claim
The respondent fraudulently acquired title to the suit land.
Court’s Finding
The appellants failed to plead and prove the particulars of fraud as required under Okello Okello v UNEB (CACA No. 12 of 1997). The evidence showed that the title was duly issued, and correspondence from the Ministry of Lands confirmed its authenticity. In the absence of proven fraud, the respondent’s title remained conclusive under Section 176 of the Registration of Titles Act (RTA).
Ground 1 was dismissed for lack of merit.
Ground 2 Appellants Not Trespassers
Appellants' Claim
The trial judge erred in declaring them trespassers.
Court’s Finding
The appellants only obtained lease offers in 2009 and entered the land in 2012, long after the respondent had been in peaceful possession since 1977 and had obtained title in 1981. The purported boundary-opening order used by the appellants to enter the land was later set aside for procedural irregularities. Moreover, their claim of customary tenancy was unsupported by evidence. The respondent, being a registered proprietor, had better title under the RTA.
Ground 2 was dismissed. The Court confirmed the appellants were trespassers.
Ground 3: Cancellation of Lease Offers, General Damages, and Costs
Appellants' Claim
The judge erred in cancelling the lease offers and awarding general damages and costs.
Court’s Finding
The Mpigi District Land Board erroneously issued lease offers over land that was already titled, contrary to the condition that such land must be “available and free from dispute at the time of survey.” Applying Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga (1982), the Court emphasized that courts cannot sanction illegality, including the risk of double titling. The award of UGX 30 million in general damages for trespass was reasonable, and the successful respondent was entitled to costs under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Ground 3 was dismissed.
Key Takeaways
Allegations of fraud in land acquisition must be supported by specific pleadings and evidence. General accusations without particulars will not suffice.
A certificate of title is conclusive under the RTA unless fraud is proven. Lease offers issued over titled land are invalid if the land is not available or is disputed.
Entering land based on a later-cancelled court order or lease offer does not confer lawful possession where another party has a valid title.
Where lease offers violate the law or administrative process, courts are bound to cancel them to prevent illegality.
Courts will compensate registered proprietors who are unlawfully dispossessed, including through irregular state action.
A successful litigant is ordinarily entitled to costs unless special reasons are shown to the contrary.
Read the full case below
.jpg)
Comments