Equity Discussion
Equity Discussion
FACULTY OF LAW
REGISTRATION NO : U/2021/LLB/085/E
The maxim deals with priority where there is a conflict between two competing equitable interests in
property because priority of time gives better equity. In Ndigejjerawa Vs Kizito and
Kubulwamwana13[13] court held that Kizito’s /Kubulwamwana’s equitable interests had priority because
it was created earlier than Ndigejjerawa’s interest. Court further stated that the first in time rule only
applies where equities are equal. It should be note that in determining priorities between competing
equitable interests the doctrine of notice does not apply. In Uganda’s legal system the general law rules
for determining priorities are substantially different with respect to the land registered under The
Registration of Title Act. However there situations where the courts do not apply the maxim for example
in situation where there are successive assignments or mortgages of equitable interest
KASANGALYA SOLD LAND TO MUSONGO FOR AN AGREED PRICE WHICH MUSOGO PAID PARTLY AND WAS
SUPPOSED TO PAY THE BALANCE WITHIN 6 MONTHS, LATER MUSONGO LEARNT THAT KASANGALYA HAD
SOLD THE LAND TO WILLIAM . KASANGALYA AGREED TO HAVING SOLD THE LAND TO MUSONGO BUT
WILLIAM HAD RENTED THE LAND FOR A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS FROM 1ST JAN 2010 TO 1ST JAN 2020 BUT
LATER SOLD THAT LAND TO WILLIAM SINCE MUSONGO HAD FAILED TO PAY THE REMAINING MONEY
WITHIN THE 6 MONTHS.
In deciding this case, court stated that by the time musongo bought the land, william had already been
staying on the land as a tenant for hire purchase so he was in actual possession and his tenancy was still
running by the time of the sale so the question arising was on who held a better title.
Court relied on the maxim of qui prior est tempre meaning he who is ealier in time is stronger in law .
Court stated that since musongu knew the existence of a tenant by higher purchase and when the law is
to be applied, the tenant has a long standing equitable interesty than musongu, further more mosungu
had not even fulfilled the terms of the contract of paying the rest of the money within 6 months so
kasangalya could have repudiated the contract by non performance.
Back to the main point, william had longer equitable interest than the musonga