THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT WAKISO

CIVIL SUIT NO…06… OF 2025
SMITH MUGAGA………………………………………...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. PRAISE MURUNGI
2. MUGEZIGEZI CLEVER
3. REGISTRAR OF TITLES…………………...…………DEFENDANTS
PLAINTIFF’S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
My lord the plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants jointly and severally for;
a) A declaration that the 1st defendant acted fraudulently in acquiring
title to the suit land comprised of Busiro Block 234 Plot 231 at Busaku.
b) A declaration that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the land
comprised of Busiro Block 234 Plot 231 at Busaku and the 3 rd defendant
fraudulently effected the transfer of title to the 1st defendant of the suit land.
c) An order for cancellation of entry of the 1 st defendant on the
certificate of title for the land comprised of Busiro Block 234 Plot 231 at
Busaku.
d) An order for reinstatement of the plaintiff as the lawful registered
owner onto the certificate of title.
e) General damages.
f) Interest of 10% from the date of delivery of the judgment.
g) Costs of the suit.
Background
The plaintiff was a lawful registered proprietor of land Busiro Block 234 plot 231
Busaku. In the month of March 2023, the plaintiff desired to open boundaries of
the suit land the task was given to his longtime friend Mugezigezi Clever a
surveyor and on 25th march the plaintiff handed over the duplicate certificate of
title.

On the 29th March 2025 Mugezigezi clever opened the boundaries in the presence
of all my immediate neighbors and the 1st defendant was present.

On the 2 May 2025, Mugezigezi returned all the certificate of title. Shortly after,
the plaintiff received an offer from Patel for lease of land comprised at LRV 312
FOLIO 12 PLOT 32 AT BUZIGA, a search was made by Patel Singh regards the
said land and it returned Mugezigezi being the administrator of Late Smith
Mugaga vide No 0124 of 2024.

This prompted the plaintiff to undertake a search of on the certificate of title of the
suit land, its then that he discovered that they had equally been transferred from his
names.

Particularly, the suit land had been transferred to the names of 1 st Defendant, the
immediate neighbor to plot 231, the transfer having taken effect on the 15 th April
2023.

Scheduling
At scheduling the following issues were agreed upon
1. Whether the 1st defendant fraudulently acquired title to the suit land?
2. Whether the defendant is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice?
3. What are the available remedies to the parties?
Burden of proof
My lord the legal burden of proof in civil matters lies on the party who alleges to
prove his claim on the balance of probabilities
Section 101 evidence act cap 8 provides that whoever desires any court to give
judgment to her legal right he or she must prove those facts exists.
Section 102 evidence act cap 8 provides that the burden of proof in suits or
proceedings lies on that person who would fail if no evidence is given at all.
However the burden of proof in cases of fraud as stated in R.G Patel vs Lalji
Makanj [1957] E.A 355 317
“the burden of proof is upon the party alleging the fraud to strictly prove that
fraud”
Standard of proof
In R.G Patel vs Lalji Makanj [1957] E.A 355 317 it was stated that
“The standard of proof is heavier not beyond reasonable doubt but more than a
mere balance of probabilities”

Issue one
Whether the 1st defendant fraudulently acquired title to the suit land
My lord Fredrick Zaabwe vs Orrient Bank & Ors SCCA No.4 of 2006 and the
quotation therein of the definition in black’s law dictionary 6th edition page 660
that
“Fraud is an intentional perversion of the truth for the purpose of inducing another
in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to
surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact whether by word
or by conduct by false or misleading allegations or by concealment of that which
deceives and is intended to deceive another so that she shall act upon it to his legal
injury”
Furthermore fraud
“ As distinguished from negligence it is always positive intentional it comprises all
acts omissions and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty
resulting in damage to another.
My lord the above definition contains the elements of fraud such as dishonesty,
concealment, intention to cheat and participation which appear in the present case
My lord PW 1 Smith mugaga aged 64 years old a farmer testified thus;
Para 2 “I am the plaintiff in this matter”
Para 3 “I am the registered proprietor of the land comprised in Busiro Block 234
Plot 231 at Busaku”
Para 5 “In March 2023 I contacted my longtime friend a surveyor to open the
boundaries of the suit land”
Para 6 “On 25th March I handed over the duplicate certificate of title of the suit
land to him to ease his work which was land comprised of Busiro Block 234 Plot
231 at Busaku to open the boundaries”
Para 7 “Mugezigezi Clever on the 29th March carried out the boundary opening in
the presence of my immediate neighbor and the 1st defendant was around ”
Para 8 “Mugezigezi Clever returned the duplicate certificate of tittle on the 2nd
May 2023 after completion of the work”
My lord in Kampala bottlers ltd vs Damanico(u) ltd S.C Civil appeal No.22/92
Wambuzi CJ stated that
“….fraud must be attainable to the transferee I must add here that it must be
attributable either or by necessary implication by this I mean the transferee must be
guilty of some fraudulent act or must have known of such act by somebody else
and taken advantage of such act”
My lord PW 1 testified that
Para 7 “On my instructions, Mugezigezi Clever on the 29th March carried out the
boundary opening in the presence of my immediate neighbor, 1st defendant was
present”
Para 11 “I was prompted to make a search on all my other properties including land
comprised in Busiro Block 234 plot 231 at Busaku”
Para 12 “I was surprised to find out that the land had been transferred from Smith
Mugaga to Ms. Praise Murungi my immediate neighbor plot 231 on 15th April
2023”
Para 13 “I have never signed any transfer instrument to effect the said transaction
in respect to the suit land”
My lord 1st defendant transferred the land located at Busiro Block 234 Plot 231,
with intent to cheat and defraud Mr. Mugaga Smith because she filled the transfer
forms without the knowledge of the plaintiff and without his consent.

In Dan kyobe vs Daniel G.B Kubuuka Musoke & Commissioner land

registration civil suit No.108 of 2011 the court stated that
“ the evidence given on Oath by the Plaintiff specifically that he is the one who
filled the transfer forms and therefore any omission or fraudulent entry that appears
on the Transfer form is his total responsibility”
My lord the alleged transfer forms which the plaintiff didn’t sign are to deprive
the plaintiff of his land which is unlawful the 1st defendant didn’t bring evidence as
to who witnessed the signed transfer forms nor was any consideration paid to the
plaintiff.
My lord this was an intent to cheat and defraud Mr. Mugaga Smith of his land
without his knowledge by the 1st defendant.
My lord the 1st defendant had constructive notice that the title of the land she was
buying was not in the names of the purported vendor she never cared but jus paid
the money to the vendor who wasn’t smith mugaga she didn’t disclose such facts to
the plaintiff being her immediate neighbor as a prudent purchaser she had to
inquiry.
My lord the 1st defendant steadily avoided any opportunity to know the facts of the
land especially its ownership for fear of disclosing the truth
Para 7 “…..boundary opening in the presence of my immediate neighbor and the
1st defendant was around”
My lord since the 1st defendant was the immediate neighbor she would have asked
the plaintiff if he was truly selling his land and the fact that she saw mugezigezi
clever who was introduced as a surveyor she had actual constructive notice of the
fraud.
In Vivo energy (u) ltd vs Lydia kisitu SCCA No.07of 2015 which cited Sir john
Bagaire Vs Arnest Matovu CA No.07 of 1996 which cited In Sir john Bagaire
Vs Arnest Matovu CA No.07 of 1996 it was stated that
“It was held that lands are not vegetables which are bought from unknown sellers
land are very valuable properties and buyers are expected to make thorough
investigations not only land but also of the owner before purchase”
My lord the absence of sufficient due diligence by the 1st defendant for fear of
discovering the truth she acted fraudulently.
My lord on the strength of the evidence on record including documentary evidence
the defendant acted dishonestly, fraudulently and took advantage of the act in
acquiring the title we pray you find that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the land
comprised Busiro block 234 plot 231 Busaku.
Issue 2
Whether the defendant is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice
My Lord in Irsael Lwanga Vs Leonard Mubiru & Ors Civil Appeal No. 018 of
2022.

“ A Bona fide purchaser for value without notice was defined as that buyer who has
paid a stated price for the property without knowledge of existing or prior claim or
prior equitable interest.”

The Black’s law Dictionary 9th Ed at page 1355, a Bona fide purchaser for value
without notice is a buyer who buys without constructive or actual notice of any
defects or infirmities against the seller’s tittle.
My Lord it is trite law that a person who relies on the defense of a Bona fide
purchaser for value without notice under section 160 (1) of the registration of
tittles Act cap 240 has a burden to prove that she acted in good faith without ill
intention to defraud.

In David Sejjaka Nalima Vs Rabecca Musoke Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1985 the
court of appeal held that while the burden of proving the case lies on the plaintiff,
it is well settled that the onus of establishing the plea of a Bona fide purchaser lies
on the person who pleaded it.

My Lord in order to prove a defense of a Bona fide purchaser for value without
notice, it is stated in the case of Hannington Njoki Vs G.William HCCS 434/96
it was stated that a party to claim this defense she must prove that;

1. They hold a valid certificate of tittle

2. They purchased the land for valuable consideration
3. They bought in good faith without knowledge of any fraud on the part of the
vender
4. The vendor from whom the tittle derives was formerly the registered
proprietor of the suit property.

My Lord the defendant submitted a search report however, it is not conclusive

evidence of the status of title for land but it is the initial step taken by a potential
purchaser. It is the duty of the defendant to satisfy herself of the facts that the land
in issue is it the property of the person claiming ownership.

My lord the 1st defendant is the immediate neighbor of the plaintiff she saw the
developments on the land but turned a blind eye to these facts. My lord there is no
evidence on record that the defendant engaged the plaintiff to verify the status of
the land if it was being sold.
My lord the first defendant did not demonstrate good faith when she deliberately
failed and neglected to verify from the plaintiff since she was the immediate
neighbor who knew both the residence and physical appearance of Mr. Smith
Mugaga.

In the case of Senkugu & 4 Ors Vs Mukasa SCCA No. 17 of 2014

“It was stated that a purchaser has constructive notice of fraud if he had actual
notice that there was some encumbrances and a proper inquiry would have narrated
what it was and has refrained where deliberately or carelessly from making the
inquiries which a prudent purchaser would have made.”

My Lord the 1st defendant had actual notice and constructive notice since she
bought the land from the 2nd defendant whom she was aware that the 2nd defendant
was not the owner of the suit land

My lord the 1st defendant claims that she entered into Land sale agreement with the
plaintiff on the 9th day of April 2023. However, the title that would have eased the
transfer was still in the possession of the plaintiff this shows that the plaintiff didn’t
in anyway enter the said transaction with the defendant.

In the case of Daniel Sempa Mbabali Vs W.K Kidza & 4 Ors Civil Suit No.
615 of 1969. Odoki J stated that
“It’s not sufficient to only prove the purchase for value and leaving it to prove the
notice if he can”
My lord in the present case the defendant avers that she paid UGX100 Millions to
the plaintiff’s account in Stanbic Bank; the plaintiff has no bank account in the fore
mentioned bank the defendant has failed to show the money was put on the
plaintiff’s account.
My lord, the defendant has further failed to prove that she entered into a land
transaction with the plaintiff in respect of the suit land.

In conclusion the defendant knew all along that the land was for the plaintiff and
the mere fact that she was present at the boundary opening saw the land being
surveyed and bring up a defense of bona fide purchaser for value without notice
shows she didn’t purchase the land from the plaintiff we therefore pray that you
find her not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

Issue 3

Remedies

My lord PW 1 prayed for

a) A declaration that the 1st defendant acted fraudulently in acquiring title to

the suit land comprised of Busiro Block 234 Plot 231 at Busaku.
My lord the evidence on record shows clearly that the plaintiff is the
owner of the land Pw 1 in uncontroverted evidence shows it belongs to
him
The defendant has no interest in the suit land on record
My lord we pray you declare the acquisition of title as fraudulent.
b) A declaration that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the land
comprised of Busiro Block 234 Plot 231 at Busaku and the 3rd defendant
fraudulently effected the transfer of title to the 1 st defendant of the suit
land.
My lord the evidence on record shows clearly that the plaintiff is the owner
of the land Pw 1 in uncontroverted evidence shows it belongs to him
c) The defendant has no interest in the suit land on record

c) An order for cancellation of entry of the 1 st defendant on the

certificate of title for the land comprised of Busiro Block 234 Plot 231 at
Busaku.
d) An order for reinstatement of the plaintiff as the lawful registered
owner onto the certificate of title.
e) General damages.
f) Interest of 10% from the date of delivery of the judgment.
g) Costs of the suit.