Wakilii

Hon Henry Muganwa Kajura v Commissioner for Land Registration and Attorney General (Civil Appeal 132 of 2020)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 38 · 2026 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal to the Court of Appeal from a High Court decision dismissing an application for judicial review
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the cancellation of the appellant's certificate of title left standing; appellant awarded three-quarters of the taxed costs.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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 considered whether the appellant could challenge the Commissioner for Land Registration's cancellation of his land title by judicial review without first exhausting the statutory appeal under section 91(10) of the Land Act. The court held that regulation 7A of the Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019 makes exhaustion of remedies a mandatory jurisdictional pre-condition, so the application was not properly before the High Court (ground 1 dismissed). However, the trial judge erred in finding the appeal lay to the High Court: appellate jurisdiction under section 91(10) vests in a Magistrate Grade 1 or Chief Magistrate, not the High Court (ground 2 allowed). The appeal nonetheless substantially failed and was dismissed.

Facts

The appellant was the registered proprietor of approximately 24 hectares of leasehold land at Kyangwali, Hoima District (Buhaguzi Block 3 Plot No 85), held under a 49-year lease granted by the Hoima District Land Board. By an order dated 17 June 2019, the Commissioner for Land Registration amended the register and cancelled the appellant's certificate of title under section 91 of the Land Act, on the ground that the land was communally owned under customary law and had been wrongfully acquired through the District Land Board grant. The appellant learnt of the cancellation in July 2019. He complained that he had not been heard before the cancellation; notice of the public hearing had been sent by registered post to Nebbi, the wrong address, when he resided in Hoima. The Commissioner conceded that the notice was sent to the wrong address and that the appellant was never served, and proposed reinstatement of the title with no order as to costs or damages. Rather than appealing the Commissioner's decision, the appellant filed an application for judicial review in the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for judicial review was properly before the High Court where the appellant had not exhausted the existing remedies available under section 91(10) of the Land Act.
  2. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the decision of the Commissioner for Land Registration cancelling the appellant's certificate of title under section 91(10) of the Land Act.
  3. Whether the appellant was entitled to the reliefs sought in judicial review having established a violation of his right to be heard (grounds 3, 4 and 5).

Orders

  • The appeal partially succeeds in that the trial Judge erred in holding that the High Court could entertain an appeal under section 91(10) of the Land Act.
  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant shall have three-quarters (¾) of the taxed costs of the appeal and of the court below.

Key headnotes

Judicial Review — Exhaustion of Remedies — Mandatory pre-condition under regulation 7A
Under regulation 7A(1) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019 a court must first satisfy itself that the aggrieved person has exhausted the existing remedies available within the public body or under the law before entertaining an application for judicial review; this is a mandatory jurisdictional inquiry.
Land & Property — Cancellation of Certificate of Title — Statutory appeal route under section 91(10)
An appeal against a decision of the Commissioner for Land Registration cancelling a certificate of title under section 91(10) of the Land Act lay to the District Land Tribunal, and following the abolition of Land Tribunals lies to a court presided over by a Magistrate Grade 1 or a Chief Magistrate by virtue of section 32A(4) of the Land (Amendment) Act 2010.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Appellate jurisdiction as a creature of statute
Appellate jurisdiction is a creature of statute and cannot be inferred or implied; the unlimited original jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 139 of the Constitution and section 14 of the Judicature Act relates only to matters first instituted in that court and does not confer appellate jurisdiction not granted by statute.
Land & Property — Section 91(10) Land Act — High Court lacks appellate jurisdiction
The High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the orders of the Registrar of Titles under section 91(10) of the Land Act, that appellate jurisdiction being vested in a Magistrate Grade 1 or a Chief Magistrate; section 182 of the Registration of Titles Act does not avail to challenge a cancellation made under section 91 of the Land Act.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review and alternative statutory remedies
Where a statutory right of appeal exists and has not been exhausted, an aggrieved party cannot ordinarily proceed by way of judicial review; a failure by the public body to communicate its decision does not justify resort to judicial review where the party could have sought an extension of time to appeal.

Legislation cited (19)

  • Land Act s.91(1)
  • Land Act s.91(2)
  • Land Act s.91(8)
  • Land Act s.91(9)
  • Land Act s.91(10)
  • Land (Amendment) Act 2004 s.37
  • Land (Amendment) Act 2010 s.32A(4)
  • Judicature Act s.11
  • Judicature Act s.14
  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Judicature Act s.36
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 rules 2, 5, 6, 7
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019 reg.7A(1)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) (Directions) rule 30(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 50
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 139
  • Constitution of Uganda Articles 28, 44, 45, 240, 241, 242
  • Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 s.4
  • Registration of Titles Act s.182

Cases cited (8)

  • Leads Insurance Ltd v Insurance Regulatory Authority & Another (Civil Appeal No. 237 of 2015)
  • C R Patel v Commissioner Land Registration & 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 87 of 2009)
  • Elemental Energy Ltd v Uganda Registration Services Bureau & Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 150 of 2019)
  • DFCU Bank v Dona Kaauli (Civil Application No. 29 of 2019)
  • Raphael Baku Obudra v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Zubeda Mohmmed & Another v Laila Kakaka Walia & Others (Civil Reference No. 07 of 2016)
  • Sara Nakku & 2 Others v Commissioner Land Registration (Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2010)
  • Lukwago Erias v KCCA (Civil Application No. 06 of 2014)
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.