Wakilii

Dr William Muhairwe and Another v Mbarara City Land Board and Another (Miscellaneous Cause 30 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 358 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review challenging allocation of land by Mbarara City Land Board
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed for want of locus standi

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 dismissed the application for judicial review challenging Mbarara City Land Board's allocation of land to Jetha Brothers Ltd. The court held that the applicants lacked direct or sufficient interest (locus standi) in the property to bring the application. The applicants' claim was based on a will and memorandum of understanding executed after a Court of Appeal judgment had declared their late father a trespasser and ordered cancellation of his title. These documents conferred no legal interest in the property. The court found that the issue of who was the rightful sitting tenant involved determination of private rights not amenable to judicial review.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed for want of locus standi

Facts

The applicants, sons of the late Hilary Katembeko, challenged Mbarara City Land Board's decision to grant Jetha Brothers Ltd a 49-year lease on land at Boma, Kamukuzi, Mbarara City. Their father had occupied the land and developed it with commercial houses and a parking lot. In 2012, the High Court declared Hilary Katembeko a trespasser and ordered cancellation of his certificate of title in HCCS 011 of 2003. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision in Civil Appeal 111 of 2013, noting that Jetha Brothers Ltd had been issued a repossession certificate and had first priority for allocation. Hilary Katembeko made a will on 31 May 2021 purporting to bequeath the land to the applicants and entered a memorandum of understanding with them on 29 August 2022. He died on 18 May 2023. The applicants applied to the Land Board for allocation under freehold tenure. Without consulting them, the Land Board allocated the land to Jetha Brothers Ltd on 31 July 2024. The applicants claimed they were sitting tenants who had been paying ground rent and property tax.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is amenable to judicial review.
  2. Whether the 1st Respondent breached principles of natural justice and committed procedural impropriety in granting a lease on the suit land occupied by the Applicants to Jetha Brothers Ltd.
  3. Whether the 1st Respondent acted in a manner that created a legitimate expectation in the mind of the Applicants that they would be allocated the suit property.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Locus Standi — Direct or Sufficient Interest
An applicant for judicial review must have a direct or sufficient interest in the matter. The interest required is objective, not subjective; the court is concerned with objectively defined interests, not the intensity of the applicant's feelings of indignation at the alleged illegal action.
Land Allocation — Effect of Court Orders — Trespasser Status
Where a court has declared a person a trespasser on land and ordered cancellation of their certificate of title, a subsequent will or memorandum of understanding purporting to bequeath or transfer interest in that land confers no legal interest on the beneficiaries. Such documents cannot create a foothold in property where the maker's interest has been judicially extinguished.
Judicial Review — Amenability — Private Rights versus Public Law
Judicial review is not available to enforce private rights that are enforceable by way of an ordinary suit. Where an application seeks to determine ownership rights of land and other private rights, even if the decision was made by a public body, the matter is not amenable to judicial review.
Judicial Review — Sitting Tenant Status — Determination of Private Rights
The issue of who is the rightful sitting tenant as between competing claimants involves determination of private rights. Such an issue cannot be determined through judicial review proceedings if it is in contest, even where one party is a public authority.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 (as amended) Article 42
  • Judicature Act Cap 16 s.37
  • Judicature Act Cap 16 s.40
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules (as amended) r.3
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules (as amended) r.4
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules (as amended) r.6
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules (as amended) r.7
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules (as amended) r.8
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules (as amended) r.3A
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules (as amended) r.7A

Cases cited (23)

  • David Luuka Vs Fred Nsoby & Misc. Application No. 357 of 2016
  • Kahwa Fred Vs Commissioner Land Registration 2010/2012
  • William Akankwasa V Registrar of Titles HCM A No. 1 of 2008
  • Namutebi Prossy v Bumba John Livingston Revision cause No. 021 of 2021 Arising from Misc. Cause No. 26 of 2021
  • Ssemakula Ali Vs Wakiso District Local Government Misc Cause No. 2 of 2018
  • Turyamureeba Julius & 19 Others Vs Nakaseke District Local Government Miscellaneous Cause No. 0010 of 2024
  • John Jet Tumwebaze Vs Makerere University & 2 Others Misc Cause No. 12 of 2012
  • Servi Services Ltd Vs the Attorney General Misc Cause No. 12 of 2009
  • David Bamulangaki Vs the Law Development Centre Misc Cause No. 10 of 2012
  • Wamala Abdul Vs Commission for Industrial Misc Cause No. 1 of 2021
  • Lamwaka Alice Veronica Versus Amuru District Land Board & another Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 011 of 2012
  • Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1947] 2 All ER 680
  • MC-006 of 2021 Nilefos Minerals Ltd Vs Attorney General & Another MC No. 18 of 2012
  • Associate Professor Julius Wandera Vs Makerere University & Another Misc. Application No. 021 of 2021
  • Wedoilih Court Misc Cause No. 0003/2016
  • Aru Kubala Pakolators Cooperative Society Limited V Arua Municipal Council
  • Paulo Kamya Vs Kampala District Land Board & another Civil Appeal No. 06 of 2012
  • Roy v Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster Family Practitioner Committee [1992] 1 AC 624
  • Lawu Ali Ssemwogerere Vs Amuru District Land Board & another Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 011 of 2012
  • Ben Muhumuza V Attorney General MC 241 of 2021
  • Jetha Brothers Ltd v Mbarara Municipal Council, Hillary Katembeko & 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. 111 of 2013)
  • HCCS 011 of 2003
  • Dr. Lam Lasoro James (Supra)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dr William Muhairwe and Another v Mbarara City Land Board and Another (Miscellaneous Cause 30 of 2024) [2026] UGHC 358 (17 March 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.