Baguma Julius & 4 Others v Butunduzi Town council & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 24 of 2023)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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
An application for judicial review of administrative decisions halting land tenure conversion is not the appropriate remedy where the underlying issue concerns disputed land ownership. Where the National Forestry Authority objects to land tenure conversion on grounds that the land falls within a gazetted forest reserve, the dispute raises a question of ownership that must be resolved by a regular suit, not by affidavit evidence in judicial review proceedings. The application was dismissed as not amenable for judicial review.
Outcome
Application dismissed as not amenable for judicial review; applicants directed to pursue boundary opening or file regular suit to determine land ownership
Facts
The applicants claimed customary interest in land at Mukonomura Village, Butunduzi Town Council, Kyenjojo District. On 7 April 2021, they applied to the Area Land Committee to convert their customary interest to freehold. After delays in the inspection process, on 27 March 2023 the first respondent received a letter from the National Forestry Authority objecting to the inspection on grounds that the land is located within Matiri Forest Reserve. On 13 July 2023, the Resident District Commissioner directed the first respondent to halt the inspection process. On 15 September 2023, the Town Clerk formally communicated to the applicants that the titling process was halted, citing the land conflict. The applicants filed this judicial review application on 21 November 2023 seeking certiorari, mandamus, and other relief to compel the respondents to proceed with the land conversion process.
Issues
- Whether the applicants should be granted leave to file an application for judicial review out of time.
- Whether the application is amenable for judicial review.
- Whether the applicants proved grounds warranting grant of the judicial review remedies sought.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (12)
- Constitution Article 28
- Constitution Article 42
- Judicature Act s.33
- Judicature Act s.36
- Judicature Act s.36(7)
- Judicature Act s.37
- Judicature Act s.38
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.3
- Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.5(1)
- Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.6
- Land Act
Cases cited (5)
- Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal 31 of 2000)
- Registered Trustees of Ker Bwobo Land Development Trust v Nwoya District Land Board (Civil Appeal 08 of 2017)
- Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others [2014] eKLR
- Karinga Gaciani & 11 others Vs. Ndege Kabibi Kimanga & Anor, Supreme Court Application No. Eoo4 of 2023
- Nelson Basaija v Fort Portal City Service Commission & Anor (High Court Miscellaneous Application 006 of 2023)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.