Wakilii

Commissioner Land Registration v Ssekamwa Sarah and Another (Miscellaneous Application 439 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 492 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of ex parte ruling arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 0013 of 2025
Decision
Earlier ex parte ruling set aside; underlying application dismissed

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

Held that the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 139(1) of the Constitution, Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules to review its own orders where new and important evidence is discovered after the exercise of due diligence. Where letters of probate relied upon by respondents were discovered to be unauthentic and the underlying administration file contained illegalities including absence of death certificate, newspaper advert, and whitewashed register, the court's earlier ex parte ruling ordering registration of administrators was reviewed and set aside. A court cannot sanction an illegality once brought to its attention.

Outcome

Earlier ex parte ruling set aside; underlying application dismissed

Facts

The respondents, claiming to be administrators of the estate of late Wycliffe Andrew Ssekamwa Mudeka under Administration Cause No. 105 of 2019, instituted Miscellaneous Cause No. 0013 of 2025 seeking orders compelling the Commissioner Land Registration to register them on the white page for land comprised in Bulemezi Block 699 Plot 1 at Naluyambuzi. The application proceeded ex parte and was granted on 9 July 2025. When the applicant attempted to implement the ruling, it wrote to the High Court Masaka on 7 August 2025 to verify the authenticity of the letters of probate. On 10 September 2025, the Deputy Registrar at Masaka responded that the letters were not authentic and that the physical file in Administration Cause No. 105 of 2019 contained illegalities: no death certificate, no newspaper advert, and the register was whitewashed. The applicant then brought this application for review, seeking to set aside the ex parte ruling on the basis of discovery of new and important evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether the ex parte ruling issued against the applicant vide H.C.M.C 0013/2025 can be reviewed and set aside.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The ruling issued by this honorable court in Miscellaneous Cause no. 0013/2025 is hereby reviewed and set aside.
  • The order of this court granting the application to the respondents is substituted with an order dismissing the application.
  • Costs of this application shall be paid by the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Court Orders — Jurisdiction and Grounds
The High Court has inherent jurisdiction under Article 139(1) of the Constitution to review its own decisions. This power is exercised judicially and discretionarily under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules to ensure that substantive justice is administered without undue regard to technicalities.
Civil Procedure — Review — Discovery of New and Important Evidence
The power to review may be exercised upon the discovery of new and important evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced at the time when the order was made. The applicant must demonstrate that the evidence was discovered after the original order and could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence.
Administrative Law — Land Registration — Verification of Letters of Probate
Where the Commissioner Land Registration discovers that letters of probate relied upon by applicants for registration are unauthentic and the underlying administration file contains illegalities such as absence of death certificate, newspaper advert, and whitewashed register, this constitutes new and important evidence justifying review of an order made in reliance on those letters.
Civil Procedure — Illegality — Court Cannot Sanction What Is Illegal
A court cannot sanction what is illegal. An illegality once brought to the attention of court overrides all questions of pleadings including all admissions made therein. Where a ruling was obtained on the basis of unauthentic letters of probate and an administration file containing illegalities, the court will exercise its review jurisdiction to set aside the ruling.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (6)

  • F.X Mubuke v Uganda Electricity Board (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Mushabe Apollo v Mutumba Israel and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 08 of 2020)
  • Ariban Tuleshwar Vs Ariban Pishak Sharma (1979) 4 SCC 389
  • Mohammed Allibhai v W.E Bukenya Mukasa and Another (Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1995)
  • Makula International Ltd Vs His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor (1982) HCB 11
  • Abdul Jafar Devji Vs Ala RMS Devji (1958) EA 558

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Commissioner Land Registration v Ssekamwa Sarah and Another (Miscellaneous Application 439 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 492 (30 April 2026)
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.