The High Court has decided to keep a caveat on a piece of land in Ntinda, Kampala, amid an ongoing ownership dispute between Multi Consults Design Ltd and the National Housing and Construction Company (NHCC).
The decision, delivered by Justice Naluzze Aisha Batala, rejected an application by Multi Consults to remove the caveat placed by the land by NHCC.
The case centers on a plot of land, Plot 47-55 in Ntinda, which Multi Consults claims as its property. According to court documents, the company says it is the rightful owner and that the land was originally a wetland.
However, in December 2024, the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) officially decommissioned it as a wetland and approved a restoration plan, allowing potential development.
Trouble started when NHCC allegedly trespassed on the land by deploying armed security guards and placing a container there. Multi Consults responded by filing a trespass lawsuit in Nakawa Magistrate’s Court and securing a temporary injunction to stop NHCC from further interference.
Despite this, NHCC lodged a caveat on the land title claiming it had a prior lease from the Uganda Land Commission (ULC) and that the property had been fraudulently transferred to Multi Consults by the Kampala District Land Board and a company called Ape Tours and Travel.
Multi Consults argued in its application that NHCC has no legal or equitable interest in the land, pointing to a partially executed lease agreement as insufficient grounds for the caveat. The company also claimed the caveat is blocking its plans to develop the site, causing financial losses from a loan it took out for that purpose.
NHCC countered that the land was part of its leased property and was previously used as a sewerage center. It accused Multi Consults of acquiring the title through fraud and noted it has its own pending lawsuit in the High Court challenging the transfer. NHCC’s lawyers argued that removing the caveat would be unjust while their case is ongoing.
In her ruling, Justice Batala explained that a caveat is meant to provide temporary protection for someone claiming an interest in land, but it shouldn’t be indefinite. Citing legal precedents, she emphasized that courts must balance justice, convenience, and evidence when deciding on caveats.
After reviewing the evidence, the judge found that NHCC has sufficient grounds to maintain the caveat, including its pending suit against Multi Consults. She noted that the ongoing lawsuits between the parties will ultimately resolve the ownership questions, and in the interest of fairness, the caveat should stay in place to preserve the status quo.
The application was dismissed without ordering costs to either side.
