Wakilii

Excellent Assorted Manufacturers Ltd v The Commissioner Land Registration (MISC. CAUSE NO. 40 OF 2017)

High Court · [2017] UGHCCD 108 · 2017 Judicial Review Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking certiorari and prohibition to quash respondent's alleged decision to cancel certificate of title
Decision
Application dismissed; no judicial review remedy granted; respondent free to proceed with formal statutory cancellation process

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

A letter from the Commissioner Land Registration expressing an intention to commence formal proceedings for cancellation of a certificate of title under section 91 of the Land Act is not a 'decision' susceptible to judicial review. The letter was merely a preliminary step in the exercise of statutory power. No decision had been made to cancel the title; no final determination affecting the applicant's rights had been taken. Judicial review does not lie against an expressed intention that has not been accompanied by action. The application for certiorari and prohibition was dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed; no judicial review remedy granted; respondent free to proceed with formal statutory cancellation process

Facts

Excellent Assorted Manufacturers Ltd was the registered proprietor of land comprised in FRV 1352 folio 5 Kibuga Block 21 plot 302 at Busega. On 13 February 2017, Mr. Opio of the Land Registry wrote to UNRA stating his opinion that the process of cancelling the title should commence. A copy was sent to the applicant. On 2 March 2017, Mr. Opio formally invited the applicant to a public hearing scheduled for 22 March 2017 to consider cancellation of the title under section 91 of the Land Act. The applicant applied for judicial review seeking certiorari to quash the alleged decision to cancel the title and prohibition to stop enforcement of that decision. The applicant argued the letter of 13 February 2017 constituted an unlawful decision made while related litigation was pending. The respondent contended that no decision had been made; the letter expressed an intention to commence formal proceedings, and the certificate remained uncancelled.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent made a decision to cancel the applicant's certificate of title for the land comprised in FRV 1352 folio 5 Kibuga Block 21 plot 302.
  2. Whether the applicant is entitled to judicial review orders of certiorari and prohibition.

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.
  • Interim order issued on 16th March 2017 vacated.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Reviewable Decisions — Definition of 'Decision' — Distinction Between Intention and Decision
A decision susceptible to judicial review is a determination that has finality and effect, not merely an expressed intention to commence proceedings. An expression of an intention to commence a statutory process is not a decision within the meaning of judicial review law where it has not been accompanied by action and does not itself alter legal rights or impose legal consequences.
Land & Property — Land Registration — Registrar's Powers — Section 91 Land Act — Preliminary Steps
The Registrar of Titles' expression of an intention to commence formal proceedings for cancellation of a certificate of title under section 91 of the Land Act is a lawful preliminary exercise of statutory power. Judicial review does not lie at this preliminary stage before any decision has been taken; to hold otherwise would improperly gag the Registrar and prevent preliminary steps to address anomalies in titles.
Judicial Review — Scope and Limits — Concurrent Proceedings — Sub Judice Matters
The fact that a matter is sub judice (before another court) does not of itself render an administrative decision susceptible to judicial review. Judicial review is not the appropriate remedy for sub judice concerns; such matters are properly addressed through interlocutory orders within the specific court proceedings under way or through contempt proceedings, not through judicial review which would improperly frustrate a statutory process.
Judicial Review — Function of the Court — Protection from Abuse of Power — Limits on Intervention
Judicial review is intended to protect individuals from abuse of power by authorities, but it is not intended to take away from those authorities the powers and discretions properly vested in them by law or to substitute the courts as the bodies making the decisions. The function of the court is to ensure fair treatment, not to assume the decision-making role of the administrative body.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (4)

  • Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans [1983] 3 All ER 143
  • Hon. Justice Anup Singh Choudry v Attorney General (Misc. Cause No. 74 of 2012)
  • Council of Civil Service Unions and Others v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374
  • Sarah Kulata v Attorney General (Misc. Application No. 865 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Excellent Assorted Manufacturers Ltd Vs The Commissioner Land Registration (MISC. CAUSE NO. 40 OF 2017) [2017] UGHCCD 108 (29 June 2017)
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.