[20:34, 3/31/2022] Apollo: ind Practitioner Service Office
Bowmans
BACK TO OPINION AND ANALYSIS
FRAUD IN LAND TRANSACTIONS
BY JONATHAN KIWANA,DANIEL GANTUNGO WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER
02, 2019
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Fraud is fraud, and that includes land transactions where the purchaser tries to get
away with paying less transfer tax, or even none, than is due to the government.
Land transactions designed to defraud government are not only invalid but illegal.
This is the essence of the judgment handed down on 19 September 2019 by the
Supreme Court (the Court) of Uganda in the case of Betty Kizito v David Kizito
Kanonya and others.
The Court affirmed an earlier position of the High Court that a buyer is not a bona
fide purchaser where a buyer inserts a lower purchase price on a trans…
[20:37, 3/31/2022] Apollo: Skip to content
Kampala Associated Advocates
Mitigating The Risk Of Fraud In Land Transactions In Uganda; A Guide For Land
Purchasers
Tue Dec 22, 2020
Introduction
In Uganda the obvious way of proving ownership of land is by being in possession
of a certificate of title. By law, possession of title is ordinarily conclusive evidence
of ownership. The significance of a certificate of title is that it is presumed to be
indefeasible. Section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act is to the effect that a
certificate of title issued under the Act cannot be impeached or defeated and
wherever it is presented it shall be conclusive evidence that the person named in
the certificate is the owner of the land described in the certificate.
In Uganda, land has become such a precious factor in wealth creation and
production with numerous transactions, transfers and interests being created on
land. Ideally, the process of acquiring land should be straight forward, free of
conflict and as stress free as is possible while protecting the rights of the interested
party. However, because of abuse of land acquisition procedures and processes,
issues of fraud and conflict over land have become prevalent within the sector so
much so that the process of purchasing land has been described as ‘almost
synonymous with conmen’. The extent of the prevalence of fraud can be viewed
through the remarks of the former Head of the Land Division at the High Court;
Dr. Andrew Bashaijja as he explained that “Most of the cases we handled here – I
can say 75 percent-plus – are fraud-related cases,” and describes the fraud as
“rampant” throughout the land sector.
What is fraud?
The RTA does not define what amounts to fraud. However, fraud has been defined
to mean the intentional perversion of the truth by a person for the purpose of
inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to
him or her or to surrender a legal right. It is a false representation of a matter or
fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations or
concealment of that which deceives and it is intended to deceive another so that he
or she shall act upon it to his or her legal injury.[1]
Fraud has also been defined to cover dishonest dealings in land such as depriving a
purchaser for value in occupation of the land of his unregistered interest. It is well
settled that fraud means the actual or some act of dishonesty. So literally, fraud
refers to any dishonest act that is intended to deprive another person of their
interest in land through.
Who is liable for fraud?
Courts require persons who are alleging that they were deprived of their interest in
land fraudulently, to specifically plead and strictly prove fraud. As such the party
alleging fraud has the burden to prove it and it cannot be inferred from the facts.
This is in line with the general principle of the law of evidence that he who alleges
must prove.[6]
The position of the law is that fraud must be attributed to the person who becomes
registered as proprietor (transferee) of the land. This means that a person registered
through fraud is one ―who becomes registered as proprietor through a fraudulent
act by him or to which he is a party or with full knowledge of the fraud.
Fraud attributable to the transferee is either actual, imputed or constructive. Fraud
must be attributable either directly or by necessary implication, that is 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.[8] A person becomes privy to a
fraudulent transaction either by being an active participant in its perpetration by
action or omission, or when having acquired knowledge of its perpetration by
others or third parties, knowingly and wilfully seeks to take benefit fro…
[20:43, 3/31/2022] Apollo: Site iconFreiberger Haber LLP
Fraudulent Conveyance Claims Dismissed For Failure to Plead Fraud With
Particularity
admin admin
4 years ago
New York creditors often look to the Debtor and Creditor Law (the “DCL”), as
well as the common law, to recover assets that have been (or may be) transferred
by debtors to another party. Whether the debtor transfers assets with intent to
defraud or without fair consideration, the DCL provides creditors with a number of
remedies.
The DCL in Brief
Under Section 276 of the DCL,
[e]very conveyance made … with actual intent … to hinder, delay, or defraud
either present or future creditors, is fraudulent.…
In general, a party pleading a cause of action for fraudulent conveyance must
allege specific facts, including, among ot…
[20:45, 3/31/2022] Apollo: Skip to main content
FeedbackHelpAbout
Search
Home
Home
Ug
Judgment
Hc land division uganda
2020
Nanteza Nabeta v Konde (Civil Suit 391 of 2010) [2020] UGHCLD 2 (18 March
2020);
Court name
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number
Civil Suit 391 of 2010
Judgment date
18 March 2020
Title
Nanteza Nabeta v Konde (Civil Suit 391 of 2010) [2020] UGHCLD 2 (18 March
2020);
Cite this case
[2020] UGHCLD 2
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(LAND DIVISION)
CIVIL SUIT NO.391 OF 2010
ELIZABETH NANTEZA NABETA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DR. ANTHONY KONDE:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: DEFENDANT
BEFORE: HON. [Link] BATEMA N.D.A. JUDGE
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff brought this case against the Defendant praying for orders for
cancellation of the two titles comprised in Kyagwe Block 190 Plots 7 and 9
Elizabeth Nanteza Road, an order for vacant possession and eviction order, a
permanent injunction against the Defendant and or his agents/servants/employees,
general damages for trespass and costs of the suit.;
Brief facts:
The brief facts of this case are that, the Plaintiff is the beneficiary and
administrator of the estate of the late James H.B.S.K Mukasa from whom she
inherited property at Gulu and Nasuuti registered as Kyagwe Block 190 Plot 254.
However, in 2008 she discovered that the Defendant had entered the said land and
made two titles out of it to wit Kyagwe Block 190 Plots 7 and 9.
On the other hand, the Defendant who is now the registered proprietor of the above
plots, claims to have purchased it as a kibanja from one Kikomeko Samuel on the
18th day of August, 2002. That he obtained registerable interests from the Plaintiff
on the 24th day of January, 2005 having been issued with mutation and transfer
forms duly signed by the Plaintiff. He processed and obtained a duplicate
certificate of title.
Issues
The following issues were framed in the joint scheduling memorandum:
Whether or not the Defendant got himself registered on the suit land fraudulently.
Whether the Defendant is a trespasser on the suit land.
Whether the Defendant committed any fraud against the Defendant.
What remedies are available to the parties?
Issues 1 & 3:
Whether or not the Defendant got himself registered on the suit land fraudulently
and whether the Plaintiff committed any fraud against the Defendant:
The Defendant is currently registered as the proprietor of the suitland. He claims
that he is a bonafide purchaser for value. Section 59 of the Registration of Titles
Act (RTA) is to the effect that a registered proprietor of the land is protected and
his title is indefeasible except in cases of fraud. (See the case of Katarikawe vs
John Katwiremu & Anor (1977) HCB 187 and Section 176 (c) of the RTA)
For a title of a bonafide purchaser for value to be impeached, it must be fraud of
the transferee and the transferor.
The Court in the case of Fredrick Zaabwe Vs Orient Bank & Others SCCA No, 4
of 2006, defined fraud to mean the intentional perversion of the truth by a person
for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable
thing belonging to him or her or to surrender a legal right. It is a false
representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or
misleading allegations or concealment of that which deceives and it is intended to
deceive another so that he or she shall act upon it to his or her legal injury.
In Kampala Bottlers Ltd vs Damanico (U) Ltd, SCCA No.22 of 1992, it was held
that;
“ fraud must be strictly proved, the burden being heavier than one on balance of
probabilities generally applied in civil matters, it was further held that;
‘The party must prove that the fraud was attributed to the transferee. It must be
attributable either directly or by necessary impli…
[23:59, 3/31/2022] Apollo: F