Plaintiff Edith Jakana
In suit no 280 of 2022 (Edith Nagujja Jakana vs KCCA, Jakana foods limited and Commissioner Land Registration), Mrs Edith Jakana the mother to businessman Jakana has tabled fresh evidence before High court Civil Division indicating she had placed a caveat on land the son but unfortunately her son (Jakana) fraudulently sold to Kampala City Council Authority ( KCCA).
According to the old woman’s lawyers, that caveat is still intact todate yet KCCA continues to insist it bought a clean Title as the old lady insists that what Jakana sold to KCCA was nothing but hot air.
The case has taken new shape having sucked in the commissioner in charge of land registration whom the widow wants to be summoned and explain in court how he was able to issue a Title to KCCA at the time when her caveat was still present on her mother Title.
She distanced herself from KCCA’s and Jakana’s assertions that she was served through her postal office box number asking her to go to the commissioner of land registration’s office to show cause why the caveat she had placed on the shouldn’t be removed.
She wonders how if her caveat was removed from her mother Title , as it is claimed, it is still again present there.
Court having heard the submissions from the window’s lawyers , the Deputy Registrar of the high court’s land division, Agnes Alumu has set June 1 this year for her lawyers to formally apply for the commissioner’s appearance.
Once Commissioner is summoned to court , the widow wants her to produce the White page of the Title to show whether her caveat is still there and incase it is not, she wants the commissioner to explain under what circumstances it was removed while it’s still present on her own copy.
Defendants’ side
In defense, KCCA the first defendant through its Director Legal services, denied the above allegations on grounds that during preparation for construction of Nakamiro Drainage Channel, they first carried out an identification, verification and disclosure exercise and Jakana Foods limited was identified as one of the persons whose developments would be affected by the drainage
Works.
They verified that the property described as LRV 4552Folio 13 Block 203 Plot 11780 Land at Kazo Kyadondo belonged to Jakana (2nd defendant) and later paid a compensation of UGX. 827,453,640/=
“Defendant was the registered proprietor, there were no registered
encumbrances on the Register of titles and it did not commit any fraud
as alleged.”
KCCA also contends that a caveat offers temporary protective
measure enough for the applicant to take positive steps in determining
the rights of the parties affected by it and is not indefinite and a
permanent measure as envisaged by the Plaintiff.
They therefore asked court to dismiss the matter with costs.
Recommended for you
