KAMPALA, Uganda: Land ownership disputes in Uganda have taken a new twist as complaints surge regarding the mysterious lifting of caveats (envuumbo in Luganda) from land titles without the supposed consent of those who placed them. While this practice appears improper at first glance, legal loopholes provide an unsettling justification for such removals.
Hajji Baker Mugaino, Uganda’s Commissioner for Land Registration, admitted in an exclusive interview with The Investigator that some officials exploit existing gaps in land laws to lift caveats, especially those lacking court certification. “These occurrences are deemed illegal by ordinary people, but in actual sense, caveats can be ‘illegally’ lifted yet with a legal backup,” he stated.
Caveats Not the Safety Net Many Assume
Mugaino explained that many landowners place caveats and assume they offer blanket protection over their properties. However, he warned that unless a caveat is backed by judicial certification, it remains vulnerable. “People boast about placing caveats, not realizing they are legally ‘naked’ until reinforced by a court order,” he noted.
To address these ambiguities, Mugaino proposed a new policy under which caveats lacking court-backed documentation will automatically expire after three months. “We are considering introducing a system where unverified caveats are dislodged from the system after three months if they lack court certification,” he revealed.
The Case of Namale vs. Musoke
This loophole recently came to light in a dispute between Namale Sylvia and her former partner, Xavier Frasse Musoke, over land in Kajjansi. Namale, claiming to be Musoke’s official but estranged wife, slapped caveats on three plots in Bweya, Busiro, under Block 396, citing marital interest. She swore an affidavit on August 26, 2022, affirming her spousal rights and subsequently received approval from Senior Registrar of Titles, Florence Namyalo.
Musoke, however, was taken aback when he discovered the caveats while attempting to finalize the transfer of the land he had purchased in 2008 from Jomo Kashaija and Buyambi Herman. He insists that he never had a legally recognized marriage with Namale, despite fathering three children with her. Official documents confirm that he is married to Rose Nakityo, whom he wed on December 4, 2020, at Uganda Martyrs Catholic Parish, Munyonyo.
Family Feud Deepens the Land Dispute
Musoke alleges that Namale’s actions are being influenced by his mother, Noeline Kulazikulabe Namugenyi, who has never accepted Nakityo as her daughter-in-law. A police case registered vide file number SD55/22/07/22, was lodged at Kajjansi Police Station regarding a related break-in, allegedly involving Namale and Namugenyi.
Determined to reclaim his land, Musoke petitioned the Commissioner for Land Registration to remove the caveats. Mugaino confirmed that his office is reviewing the case but emphasized the need for due process. “I must listen to both parties before issuing a verdict,” he stated.
Legal Reforms in Offing
As disputes over land ownership and caveats escalate, Mugaino promised to engage the public through periodic interviews and official write-ups to clarify common misconceptions about land security. “Land issues aren’t so complicated, but there is a lot of misinformation. We need to set the record straight,” he said. With a proposed policy change on the horizon and growing public frustration, it remains to be seen whether Uganda’s land registration system will undergo the much-needed reforms to close legal loopholes and protect property owners from unexpected caveat slaps and removals.
Author Profile
- Stanley Ndawula is a two and a half decades’ seasoned investigative journalist with a knack for serious crimes investigations and reporting. He’s the Founding Editorial Director and CEO at The Investigator Publications (U) Limited
Latest entries
Local NewsMay 20, 2026Sail Well Little Soul: Young Timothy Magambo`s Demise is A Tragic Loss That Has Deservedly Touched Many Hearts From All Walks!
FeaturedMay 18, 2026Museveni Fury Roars On: Electoral Chiefs Justice Byabakama and Don Tanga Odoi Face Heat After Being Cited as Troubled Annita Among`s Conduits
CrimeMay 16, 2026No Longer At Ease: House Arrested Speaker Anita Among`s Allies and Acomplices at Auditor General`s Office Named as Police, SFC Raid Her Home
FeaturedMay 16, 2026Inside Nameere Apprehension: Security Operatives Recover UGX3.5bn from Masaka MP Home, Money Said To Have Been Set For Hon. Oboth`s Destabilisation
This gentle man does not know what he is talking about.The term “Caveat” comes from a Latin term “cavere” which means “warning”, “hint of caution”, or “let him beware”. In layman’s terms “a caveat is an entry made within books of the offenses of the registry or court to avoid a particular step being taken without prior notice to the person entering the caveat”. In law, it is observed as a notice or a precaution exercised expressly in probate cases. It is initiated with an aim that under court proceedings certain matters shall not be heard, action may not be taken, judgment or order may not be passed or issued without the hearing the person who has filed the notice of caveat. It is a precaution measure taken against the grant of probate by lodging a caveat and a person who lodges the caveat is called “caveator”in the case of Nirmal Chand v. Girindra Narayan AIR 1978 Cal 492, 82 CWN 1026, the court defined caveat as forewarning given by an individual person to the court that no order or judgment shall be passed deprived of furnishing any notice or without hearing the caveator. Caveator is a person who files a caveat and caveatee is a person who has instituted a suit or is likely to do so is. The main purpose of caveat is to make sure that the court does not passes ex-parte orders and that the interests of the caveator are protected. Caveat aids in reducing the burden of court and reduces the multiplicity of proceedings and brings an end to the litigation. The application of caveat can be filed in a suit or a proceeding. However, some High Courts have viewed that during an appeal (whether first or second) or during the execution proceedings that the application of caveat cannot be entertained. But in the case of Chandra Aggarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 1888 Supreme Court observed that the expression “Civil Proceeding”included all kinds of proceedings which are not original proceedings. Thus, an application of caveat can be filed in all suits, appeals, and proceedings under the Civil Procedure Code. In cases where the caveator is absent in a proceeding the court shall find the prima facie case in the favor of the applicant, ad interim relief shall be granted by the court in his favor. A caveat may be filed by any individual who is going to be affected by an interim order likely to be passed on an application which is anticipated to be made in a suit or proceeding instituted or about to be instituted in a Court.Where an application is expected to be made or has been made, in a suit or proceeding instituted, or is about to be instituted, in a Court. Any person claiming a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of such aforementioned application may lodge a caveat in respect thereof. In the case of Kattil Vayalil Parkkum Koiloth v. Mannil Paadikayil Kadeesa Umma AIR 1991 Ker 411, court held that a person who is a stranger to the proceeding cannot lodge a caveat. Likewise, a person supporting the application for interim relief made by the applicant also cannot file a caveat. A caveat shall be filed with a copy by the caveator or by an advocate on his behalf and the same must be registered in the caveat register maintained by the court in a form of petition or any other form prescribed by the court.An application of notice is served by the court to the caveator on the event of filling of caveat. At the point when a notice has been served on the applicant, the applicant at the expense of the caveator is needed to give the caveator a copy of the application made by him alongside any document that has been submitted with the application. If, in the event that the court or applicant disregards the caveat and doesn’t notify the caveator, the pronounced judgment or decree passed gets null and void. We actually need to be serious when doing things in this country.
What does Baker Mugaino mean by a “naked caveat” in the context of land registration?
I really want to understand what this Commissioner is stating. Caveats are being vacated without the consent of the caveator. The only instrument of protection is compromised at the expense of fraud and forgery at the lands ministry. What a mess!!!!
The instances am certain on how to vacate a caveat are through withdraw by the caveator, lapses after statutory notice and court ordering its removal.
On these grounds, what does he mean when he says a ‘naked’ caveat.’
He contradicts himself when he says he has to listen to both sides in the matter of the woman who lodged a caveat against her alleged husband’s titles. DOES HER CAVEAT HAVE JUDICIAL CERTIFICATION or is his office, as usual, making and or enforcing the rules as and when they feel like?