THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

(LAND DIVISION)
CIVIL SUIT NO. 01 OF 2025
SMITH MUGAGA ======================================== PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. PRAISE MURUNGI
2. REGISTRAR OF TITLES ============================= DEFENDANTS
PLAINTIFF’S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

1. BACKGROUND

MAY IT PLEASE YOU MY LORD,

The matter before this court is entirely based on fraud. One of the many matters where
the Plaintiff has fallen prey of the 1 st Defendant’s fraudulent acts. The brief facts of the
case are simply that the Plaintiff was the registered proprietor of land comprised in
Busiro Block 234 Plot 231 where he carries out poultry farming.

Unfortunate for the Plaintiff, having sufficient reason to believe there could have been
change of proprietorship, he decided to conduct a search on the suit land. The search
shockingly revealed that the 1st Defendant is the current registered proprietor of the suit
land. Adding insult to injury, the 1 st Defendant is an immediate neighbor to the Plaintiff.
Important to note, the Plaintiff has never sold this land or transferred it to the 1 st
Defendant. It is thus the averment of the Plaintiff that the 1 st Defendant fraudulently
acquired the suit land to which he shall seek the cancellation of her entry into the title.

At the scheduling conference, court adopted the issues proposed by the parties in the
Joint Scheduling Memorandum and they are:

i. Whether the 1st Defendant fraudulently acquired the suit land.

ii. What remedies are available to the parties.
2. RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUES

WHETHER THE 1ST DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY ACQUIRED THE SUIT LAND

Fraud does not have a statutory definition but has however been developed over time in
the Ugandan jurisprudence.

Notably, in the case of FREDERICK ZAABWE V ORIENT BANK & OTHERS

SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2006, court held that fraud is an act of
dishonesty, an intentional pervesion of the truth or a false misrepresentation of fact. It
was to the effect that fraud could be manifest in various ways. Having notice of fraud or
an act that was dishonest and could be attributed to the Defendant.

The case of KAMPALA BOTTLERS V DAMANICO(U) LTD (1990-1994) EA 141

emphasized that fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved against the transferee.
It further stated that the burden to prove the fraud lies on who alleges it and the burden
is slightly higher than a balance of probabilities but not beyond a reasonable doubt. We
have put the same in consideration while proving fraud against the 1st Defendant.

My Lord, in the instant case, the Plaintiff in his plaint and particularized three particulars
of fraud, to wit: the 1st Defendant deliberately ignoring to conduct a due diligence on the
land, false misrepresentation of sale of the suit land and lastly the intentional
suppression of truth when she failed to conduct a search from the land registry. We
shall now proceed and demonstrate how the evidence on record has proved this against
the 1st Defendant.

Deliberately ignoring to conduct due diligence & failing to conduct a search at the land
registry.

It was the evidence of PW 1 that the 1st Defendant was his immediate neighbor and thus
ought to have known better who the owner of the land was. Unfortunately, the 1 st
Defendant did not bother to inquire whether the Plaintiff was actually selling this land or
who owned the poultry farm on the land. It was clear that the 1 st Defendant had actual
notice of this fraud but simply chose to wilffuly blind herself and hence got fraudulently
registered on the suit land.

Otherwise, at the very least, had the 1st Defendant just consulted the Plaintiff she would
have discovered that the land was not for sale and probably would have not purchased.

Additionally to that My Lord, the 1st Defendant had actual notice of who the registered
proprietor of the land. At the time of transfer, the Plaintiff was the registered proprietor of
the land. Sadly, the 1st Defendant did not carry out a search from the land registry and
had she done this, she would have discovered that the person who purportedly sold to
her was not the registered proprietor and hence her action could only be aimed at
depriving the Plaintiff of his land.

In line with the jurisprudence in Frederick Zaabwe (supra) where court held that having
notice of fraud and doing nothing about it amounts to being fraudulent, on that note
alone, we invite court to find that, the 1 st Defendant was fraudulent in her actions when
she deliberately ignored to carry out sufficient due diligence on the suit land.

False misrepresentation of sale

The Plaintiff clearly led evidence in chief that he has never subjected the suit land for
sale. He also clearly testified that he has never transferred the land to the 1 st Defendant.
On the other hand, the 1st Defendant alleges that she purchased the land for valuable
consideration. It is hence our submission that misrepresenting the land for sale whereas
not amounts to the 1st Defendant being fraudulent since it is an act of dishonesty aimed
at depriving the Plaintiff of his land.

In the conclusion of this issue, we would pray that this Honourable Court finds that the
1st Defendant fraudulently acquired the suit land.
ISSUE 2

WHAT REMEDIES ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PARTIES

The Plaintiff in his plaint prayed for declarations that the transfer to the 1 st Defendant
was fraudulent, the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit land, cancellation of the 1 st
Defendant’s entry, general and special damages, interest and costs of the suit from this
Honourable Court.

In addressing the remedies we shall submit on remedies (i)-(iv) together, then (v) and
(vi) together and lastly interest on general and special damages and costs of the suit
separately.

REMEDIES (I) – (IV)

My Lord, having found above, that the 1st Defendant was fraudulent in acquiring the suit
land, we pray that a declaration doth issue in that regard. Subsequently, we pray that
the Plaintiff is declared the lawful owner of the suit land and hence the 1 st Defendant’s
entry on the title be cancelled and the Plaintiff be subsequently restored as the
registered proprietor of the suit land.

GENERAL AND SPECIAL DAMAGES.

My Lord,

The principle relating to general damages was well stated in the case of UGANDA
COMMERCIAL BANK V KIGOZI [2002] 1 EA 305 that a Plaintiff who suffers
damage for the wrongful act of the Defendant must be put in the position he or
she would have been in, had he or she not suffered the wrong.

In the instant case, PW 1 led evidence to show that he has suffered general
inconvenience, the mental anguish of almost losing his land and being in that state of
fear, as a result of the 1st Defendant’s fraudulent transfer of the suit land into her name.

In the premises, we propose a sum of UGX. 10,000,000/= as general damages.

Turning to the point of special damages, the position of the law is that they must be
specifically pleaded and proved.

In the instant case, the plaint particularly pleaded the special damages. Similarly, PW 1
led evidence to show that he had instructed lawyers to file caveats, issue out demand
notices and carry out a search. The receipts were admitted as PE 5 and are on the
Plaintiff’s trial bundle.

We pray that the Plaintiff is awarded special damages of UGX. 6,000,000/- that was
pleaded.

INTEREST
In regard to payment of interest, Section 26 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act empowers this
Court to award interest that is just and reasonable taking into account the ever rising
inflation and drastic depreciation of currency. The rationale of interest was well
discussed in the case of PROTEA CHEMICALS EAST AFRICA V KAC CHEMICALS
AND PAINTS (U) LTD H.C.C.S NO. 470/2016; where Court held that a Plaintiff is
entitled to interest that would not neglect the prevailing economic value of money but at
the same time insulate him or her against the economic vagaries when money awarded
is not promptly paid when it falls due.

In light of the above, we do pray that this Honourable Court awards Interest general and
special damages so as to insulate the Plaintiff from economic vagaries in case the said
award is not promptly paid.

Lastly, in respect to costs of the suit, it has been a well settled position of the law, that
costs follow the event and are awarded to the successful party, in the premises we do
pray, that the Plaintiff is awarded costs of this suit.

We so submit.

Dated at Kampala this 3rd day of February 2025.

Kuhumura Annet
COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF
DRAWN AND FILED BY;
M/S PNA ADVOCATES
PLOT 47 KAMPALA ROAD
KAMPALA.