Wakilii

David Buryo v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause 175 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 201 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review of administrative decision cancelling certificate of title
Decision
Certificate of title restored; cancellation quashed; matter may be adjudicated by court of competent jurisdiction

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

The High Court granted judicial review and quashed the Commissioner Land Registration's decision cancelling a certificate of title. The court held that the cancellation was illegal for want of jurisdiction to conclusively adjudicate contested ownership claims and procedurally improper for denying the applicant a fair hearing. The Commissioner's jurisdiction under the Land Act is supervisory and administrative; contested ownership disputes fall within the High Court's exclusive jurisdiction. Preventing a party from completing testimony and calling witnesses violates constitutional guarantees of natural justice under Articles 28(1) and 42.

Outcome

Certificate of title restored; cancellation quashed; matter may be adjudicated by court of competent jurisdiction

Facts

David Buryo purchased land known as Kyarwabugando (FRV MBR 1103, Folio 78, Plot 2758, Block 3 in Mbarara City) from Akonkwaso Rodgers, took possession, established a farm, and lodged transfer documents with the Registrar of Titles, Mbarara. Mbarara City Council lodged a caveat and filed a complaint with the Commissioner Land Registration alleging the certificate of title had been illegally issued. The Commissioner conducted a hearing on 29 July and 3 August 2022. During the hearing, Buryo was arrested by the Respondent's officers while giving testimony and handed over to police, preventing him from completing his evidence or calling witnesses. On 8 August 2022, the Commissioner cancelled the certificate of title on grounds it had been issued in error. Buryo sought judicial review of the cancellation decision.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is amenable for judicial review?
  2. Whether the application discloses any grounds for judicial review?
  3. Whether the Applicants are entitled to the reliefs sought?

Orders

  • An Order of Certiorari issues quashing the Respondent's decision cancelling the certificate of title in respect of the suit land.
  • An Order of Prohibition restraining the Respondent, her servants or agents from enforcing or giving effect to the said cancellation.
  • The certificate of title remains valid and subsisting until set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction.
  • No orders as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Amenability — Public Body Exercising Public Function
A matter is amenable for judicial review where it involves a public body acting in exercise of its public function and the subject matter involves claims based on public law principles rather than enforcement of private law rights.
Natural Justice — Right to Fair Hearing — Denial of Opportunity to Complete Evidence
A hearing where one party is prevented from presenting his witnesses or completing his testimony is not a meaningful hearing in the eyes of the law and violates the constitutional guarantees of fair hearing under Articles 28(1) and 42 of the Constitution.
Land Registration — Commissioner's Powers — Limits of Jurisdiction under Land Act s.88
The jurisdiction of the Commissioner Land Registration under section 88 of the Land Act is supervisory and administrative in nature. The Commissioner cannot assume the role of a trial court in adjudicating contested claims of ownership and to cancel a title on contested factual claims without a proper hearing amounts to usurpation of the High Court's jurisdiction.
Illegality — Acting Ultra Vires — Exercise of Discretion Beyond Statutory Limits
Where discretionary power is conferred upon legal authorities, it is not absolute but is subject to general limitations. Discretion must be exercised in the manner intended by the empowering Act, reasonably and in good faith, taking into account only relevant considerations, and the decision must not be arbitrary or capricious.
Procedural Impropriety — Breach of Statutory Procedure under Land Act s.88
Section 88 of the Land Act confers on the Commissioner powers to cancel or amend certificates of title but subject to mandatory requirements of notice of intention to cancel not less than 21 days in the prescribed form, an opportunity to be heard, and provision of reasons in writing with a right of appeal to the District Land Tribunal. Failure to comply with these requirements renders the cancellation procedurally improper and unlawful.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (6)

  • Attorney General v Yustus Tinkasimmirc & Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 208 of 2013)
  • Kuluo Joseph Andrew & Ors v Attorney General & Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 705 of 2010)
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service (1985) AC 375
  • Dr. Lam-Lagoro James v Muni University (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 007 of 2016)
  • Smart Protus Magaru & 13 Others v Financial Intelligence Authority (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 275 of 2018)
  • Alex Nyiko and Anor v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0259 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

David Buryo v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause 175 of 2022) [2025] UGHCCD 201 (14 November 2025)
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.