Determining the Rightful Owner: A Legal Breakdown of Zenith Agro Services Limited vs Departed Asian Property Custodian Board & Another Civil Suit No. 18 of 2021.

Overview In the case of Zenith Agro Services Limited v Departed Asian Property Custodian Board & Another, the plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership over Plot 2 Bell Avenue, Jinja Road, and contested the 2nd Defendant's attempt to issue a new title for part of the land without consent. The court, presided over by Hon. Lady Justice Faridah Shamilla Bukirwa Ntambi, in her decision handed down on 4th June 2024, addressed crucial issues related to the legality of the subdivision and the validity of permissions granted for land occupation.

The court reaffirmed established legal principles, emphasizing that ownership determination hinges on the registry of titles under Section 46 of the Registration of Titles Act. That the certificate of title serves as conclusive proof of ownership as stipulated under Section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act, and a registered proprietor's title is indefeasible except in cases of fraud as established in the case of Katarikawe v Katwiremu & Another [1977] HCB187. By examining the certificate of title, the court confirmed the plaintiff as the rightful owner of the suit land, declaring the 2nd Defendant's actions illegal and fraudulent.

Brief Facts. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the 1st and 2nd Defendants, seeking a declaration of lawful ownership of the suit property (Plot 2 Bell Avenue, Jinja Road, Butembe FRV 60 Folio) and challenging the 2nd Defendant's attempt to create a new certificate of title without consent. The plaintiff also sought a declaration that granting the 3rd and 4th Defendants permission to occupy land (Plot 1 Grant Road) created from the plaintiff's land was illegal and fraudulent. Additionally, the plaintiff sought a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from dealing with the plaintiff's land or creating third-party interests, and claimed exemplary, punitive, and general damages, interests, and costs of the suit. The plaintiff, the registered proprietor of the suit land, alleged that in 2020, the 2nd Defendant, at the instance of the 1st Defendant, attempted to subdivide the land without the plaintiff's knowledge or consent, creating Plot 1 Grant Road, and sought to stop this unlawful action.

The Primary Issues for Determination

1. Whether the actions of the defendants jointly and severely attempting to subdivide and create plot 1 Grant Road out of the plaintiffs land comprised in Plot 2 Bell Avenue are Lawful?
   

2. Whether the acts of the 2nd defendant granting permission to individuals to occupy the plaintiffs land claiming to be plot 1 Grant Road are lawful?

Legal representation 

1. M/s Arcadia  Advocates represented the plaintiff

2. M/s Victoria Advocates represented the 1st Defendant.

3. The 2nd Defendant was not represented.

The Decision of the Court.

The court addressed two key issues: who is the rightful owner of the land, and whether the creation of Plot 2 was lawful?

The court determined that the proprietor of the land is the person whose name appears on the certificate of title under Section 46 (4) of the Registration of titles act states that: states that the person named in any certificate of title or instrument so registered as the proprietor of or having any estate or interest in or power to appoint or dispose of the land described in the certificate or instrument shall be deemed and taken to be duly registered proprietor of the land.

Therefore for court to determine the registered proprietor of the suit land it’s prudent for court to examine the certificate of title with respect to the suit land. It is also well set principle that the certificate of title shall be the proof of conclusive ownership of the suit land as envisaged under section 59 of the Registration of Titles act. 

Court further observed that in the certificate of title serves as conclusive proof of ownership under Section 59, and the proprietor's title is indefeasible except in cases of fraud in the landmark case of Katarikawe v Katwiremu & Another [1977] HCB187. The evidence showed that Zenith Agro Service Limited is the registered proprietor of the suit land, having been entered on the certificate of title on October 16, 2018. Regarding the lawfulness of the attempted subdivision, the court held that only the proprietor of the land has the right to transfer interests in the land under Section 92 of the Registration of Titles Act.

The plaintiff, as the proprietor, has the exclusive power to transfer the suit land, and any attempt by the 2nd defendant to subdivide the land without the plaintiff's consent is unlawful. Furthermore, the court found that the 2nd defendant's granting of permission to occupy the non-existent Plot 1 Grant Road is illegal, as only the registered proprietor has the power to deal with the land. Conclusion

The case of Zenith Agro Services Limited v Departed Asian Property Custodian Board & Another, in which the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, declaring them the rightful owner of Plot 2 Bell Avenue, Jinja Road. The court upheld established legal principles, emphasizing that ownership is determined by the registry of titles and that a certificate of title serves as conclusive proof of ownership, except in cases of fraud. The court found that the 2nd Defendant's attempt to subdivide the land and issue a new title without consent was illegal and fraudulent. Additionally, the court held that the 2nd Defendant's granting of permission to occupy the non-existent Plot 1 Grant Road was unlawful, as only the registered proprietor has the power to deal with the land. Summarised by Ruth Karungi Finalist of Law - UCU Find full case https://ulii.org/akn/ug/judgment/ughc/2024/412/eng@2024-06-04