Mukiibi and Another v Commissioner Land Registration (Civil Appeal 113 of 2020)

Court of Appeal · [2023] UGCA 268 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

First appeal from a High Court (Civil Division) decision dismissing an application for judicial review

Decision

Appeal dismissed; High Court decision dismissing the judicial review application upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the dismissal of the appellants' judicial review application. It held that the appellants were not denied the right to be heard: they were validly served by registered post at the address on the certificate of title (the only address on record), and the right to be heard is satisfied where a party is given an opportunity to be heard but fails to appear. The Court further held that the sub-judice rule is not a ground for judicial review and does not restrain a decision-maker merely because related matters are pending in court; the appellants ought to have obtained an injunction. The High Court's findings of fact and law were upheld with costs.

Facts

Land formerly comprised in Kyadondo Block 185 Plots 385 and 386 had belonged to the Kisosonkole family. The first appellant, a surveyor, registered himself as proprietor by a transfer dated 3 November 1981, then sub-divided the land into Plots 8151–8154; Plot 8152 was transferred to the second appellant in 2011. Following a complaint by Winnie Tugume (who said she had bought the land in 1998 from the estate's administrators, with the first appellant signing as a witness), the Commissioner Land Registration issued summons and later a notice of intention to effect changes, served by registered post on the address on the certificate of title. The appellants did not attend the public hearing held on 17 January 2019. The Commissioner cancelled the appellants' registration. The appellants brought judicial review challenging the cancellation as arbitrary, fraud-based, in breach of natural justice, and sub-judice; the High Court dismissed it.

Issues

Whether the appellants were denied the right to be heard before the Commissioner Land Registration cancelled their certificates of title.
Whether the matter before the Commissioner Land Registration was sub-judice.

Orders

The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
The orders of the High Court are upheld.

Key headnotes

Natural Justice — Right to be Heard — Effect of Failure to Appear After Opportunity Given

The right to be heard is limited to affording a party an opportunity to be heard; where a party is given that opportunity and fails to appear before a judicial or quasi-judicial body, the party cannot complain that the right to be heard was violated, and the matter may proceed in the party's absence.

Natural Justice — Form of Hearing — Oral Hearing Not Always Required

There is no fixed form of hearing procedure that must be followed; an oral or personal hearing is not an indispensable ingredient of natural justice in every case, and whether the procedure adopted accords with natural justice depends on the circumstances.

Registration of Titles — Service of Notices — Service by Registered Post on Address on Certificate of Title

Service of a notice or summons by registered post on the address shown on the certificate of title is effective service under section 35 of the Interpretation Act and section 202 of the Registration of Titles Act; it is the duty of every registered proprietor to keep that address active, and a proprietor who fails to notify a change of address cannot fault the Commissioner Land Registration for serving on the registered address.

Scope — Sub-judice Not a Ground for Judicial Review

The sub-judice rule is not a ground for judicial review and does not restrain an administrative decision-maker merely because related matters are pending in court; a party who fears prejudice from such a decision must seek a temporary injunction, and absent a court order restraining it the decision-maker may lawfully proceed.

Memorandum of Appeal — Compliance with Rule 86 — Grounds Must Be Concise and Not Argumentative

Under Rule 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules a memorandum of appeal must set out the grounds concisely and without argument or narrative; grounds that are argumentative and imprecise offend the Rule and may be struck out, though the Court retains a discretion to determine the issues on merit in the interest of justice.

Legislation cited (10)

Land Act Cap 227 s.91 (as amended)
Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.177
Registration of Titles Act s.165
Registration of Titles Act s.202
Interpretation Act s.35
Constitution of Uganda art.28
Constitution of Uganda art.42
Constitution of Uganda art.44
Court of Appeal Rules r.30(1)
Court of Appeal Rules r.86

Cases cited (4)

Hilda Wilson Namusoke and Others v Owolla's Home Investment Trust Ltd and the Commissioner for Land Registration (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2017)
Fr. Narsensio Begumisa and 3 Others v Eric Tibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
Ephraim Ongom Odongo v Francis Binego Donge (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2008)
Cecil David Edward Hugh v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 266 of 2013)

Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.