The High Court affirms that trespass to land may occur through unlawful registration, even in the absence of physical intrusion. The CLR bears no liability for registrations effected in reliance on...

Waboga David
4 days ago
5 min read

The High Court affirmed that trespass to land may occur through unlawful registration, even in the absence of physical intrusion, where such registration interferes with the lawful possessor’s proprietary rights. The Court further clarified that the Commissioner of Land Registration bears no liability for registrations effected in reliance on documents presented as genuine, unless there is cogent proof of bad faith in the exercise of statutory functions.

Introduction

In Uganda, suits for trespass to land typically arise where a party interferes with another’s actual or continued possession of land. Trespass occurs whenever there is unauthorized interference with lawful possession, whether through physical entry or legal actions that undermine the possessor’s rights.

Our Courts have now increasingly recognized that interference with legal instruments—such as certificates of title—can constitute “legal trespass”, even in the absence of physical intrusion.

The Commissioner of Land Registration who is a statutory officer empowered under Ugandan law to effect changes on the certificate of title and maintain the integrity of the land register. While the Commissioner has broad authority to register transfers and cancellations, their liability is typically limited when acting on documents deemed authentic, unless bad faith or improper conduct is established.

In the case of Lutembe Edward Ntege v. Mukiibi Katamba Fred & Commissioner of Land Registration (Civil Suit No. 1 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 534, 16 July 2025), the High Court of Uganda was called upon to address the issue of fraud, trespass, and statutory authority in land registration. The Court examined whether a fraudulent registration could constitute trespass and clarified the circumstances under which the Commissioner may be held liable for actions affecting titles.

Facts of the case

The Plaintiff, Lutembe Edward Ntege, sued in his capacity as administrator of the estate of the late Sulaimani Ntege, seeking declarations that:

The suit land, Mawokota Block 162 Plot 13 at Mpambire, forms part of the estate;
The 1st Defendant, Mukiibi Katamba Fred, fraudulently dealt with the land;
Cancellation of the 1st Defendant’s title;
Registration of the Plaintiff as proprietor; and
General damages, interest, and costs.

The late Sulaimani Ntege was the lawful owner of the entire square mile in Block 162. Without the knowledge of the Plaintiff or his siblings, Bulazi Damulira and Paulo Nyongwe fraudulently registered themselves as proprietors, subdividing the land into Plots 8–14. These plots were subsequently transferred to Bulazi Damulira.

The Plaintiff previously obtained a favorable judgment in Mpigi HCCS No. 92 of 2017, ordering cancellation of the fraudulent titles, including Plot 13. Despite this, the 1st Defendant, a neighboring landholder, allowed Plot 13 to be registered in his name, fully aware that it was part of the late Ntege’s estate and occupied by the family. The Plaintiff had lodged a caveat on the land (Instrument No. MPI-00024146) to protect the estate’s interest.

The Plaintiff alleged that the 1st Defendant:

Colluded with Damulira and Nyongwe to acquire the land;
Failed to perform due diligence on existing occupants;
Transferred the land to defeat the unregistered interests of the estate beneficiaries;
Acquired it from persons without possession;
Ignored permanent family structures such as gardens and graveyards; and
Never demanded ground rent, evidencing intent to conceal his registration.

The 1st Defendant did not file a defense or appear in court, despite service through substituted means.

The Plaintiff led evidence through PW1 (himself) and PW2.

The 2nd Defendant, the Commissioner of Land Registration, filed a Written Statement of Defence asserting that he acted in his official capacity, maintaining the sanctity of the land register and relying on documents presented as genuine, seeking to be absolved from liability.

Key Issues

Whether the suit land formed part of the estate of the late Sulaimani Ntege
Whether the 1st Defendant fraudulently transferred the suit land into his name
Whether the 1st Defendant was a trespasser
Available remedies

Court’s Findings

1. Whether the suit land formed part of the estate of the late Sulaimani Ntege

The Court found that the suit property, Mawokota Block 162 Plot 13 at Mpambire, was originally registered in the name of the late Sulaimani Ntege as part of a larger square mile on Block 162. This was established through:

Documentary evidence (Blue Page entries) showing Sulaimani Ntege’s registration as proprietor.
Prior High Court judgment in Mpigi HCCS No. 92 of 2017, which declared the late Ntege as the rightful owner of Plots 8–14 (including Plot 13) and ordered cancellation of fraudulent titles. This judgment was unchallenged and thus binding.
Locus visit confirming Plaintiff’s possession for over 15 years, supported by testimony from local authorities and bibanja holders who recognized him as the rightful owner.
Caveat lodged by the Plaintiff (Instrument No. MPI-00024146) to protect the estate’s interest.

The Court held that Plot 13 forms part of the estate of the late Sulaimani Ntege and should revert to the Plaintiff as administrator.

2. Whether the 1st Defendant fraudulently transferred the suit land into his name

Applying the definition of fraud in Black’s Law Dictionary and the standard in Kampala Bottlers Ltd v. Damanico (U) Ltd SCCA No. 22 of 1992, the Court held that fraud must be attributable to the transferee directly or by implication.

The evidence showed that:

The 1st Defendant, a neighbor to the suit land, knew it belonged to the late Ntege’s estate and was occupied by the Plaintiff’s family.

He acquired the land from persons (Bulazi Damulira and Paul Nyongwe) who never possessed it, without conducting due diligence.

He ignored visible indicators of occupation—gardens, graveyards, and family homesteads—and never demanded ground rent from occupants, indicating an intent to conceal his registration.

His title registration was discovered only when the Plaintiff attempted to enforce prior cancellation orders.

The Court concluded that the 1st Defendant was not a bona fide purchaser, but rather a direct beneficiary of his predecessor’s fraud, and that his registration was fraudulent.

3. Whether the 1st Defendant was a trespasser

Relying on Justine E.M.N. Lutaya v. Stirling Civil Engineering Co. Ltd, the Court emphasized that trespass occurs where there is unauthorized interference with lawful possession, whether physical or legal.

The Plaintiff, as administrator, had legal possession of the land forming part of the estate.

The 1st Defendant’s fraudulent registration:

Interfered with the Plaintiff’s legal rights and ability to deal with the property.
Constituted “legal trespass,” as it undermined the Plaintiff’s possessory rights even in the absence of physical intrusion.

The Court therefore held that the 1st Defendant was a trespasser on the suit land.

4. What remedies are available to the parties

Having resolved all three substantive issues in the Plaintiff’s favor, the Court ordered:

Declaration that Plot 13 forms part of the late Ntege’s estate.
Registration of the estate (with the Plaintiff as administrator) as proprietor of the land.
Cancellation of the 1st Defendant’s registration, declared null and void.
Declaration that the 1st Defendant acted fraudulently and is a trespasser.
No liability against the 2nd Defendant (Commissioner of Land Registration), as he acted on documents presented as genuine and without proven bad faith.
Costs awarded to the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant, but no general damages or interest, as the Plaintiff was never dispossessed and his primary interest was restoration of title.

Key Takeaways

Prior judgments on related fraudulent land dealings remain binding where unchallenged, and can form the foundation for fresh proceedings against parties not previously sued.
Fraud in land transactions requires proof of the transferee’s direct involvement or knowledge—possession and local awareness can be crucial in establishing this.
Trespass to land can be legal, not just physical, where unlawful registration interferes with an owner’s possessory rights.
Commissioner of Land Registration not liable when acting on documents deemed authentic unless bad faith is proven.
Prompt caveating of disputed land is essential to protect estate interests pending resolution.

Read the full case below