Wakilii

Grace Namulondo and 3 Others v Jone Johns Serwanga Salongo and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 001 of 2019)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 327 · 2019 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review of an administrative decision by the Commissioner for Land Registration
Decision
Application for judicial review allowed; certiorari issued quashing the Commissioner's decision to rectify the land register

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 Commissioner for Land Registration acted ultra vires and irrationally in exercising powers under the Land Act to rectify the land register. The decision was made with an ulterior motive to reverse court judgments from 1984-1993 that had determined land ownership in favour of the applicants' predecessors. The rectification was triggered by parties who had lost interest in the land through multiple court decisions. The decision was quashed by certiorari and a declaratory order was issued, but damages were refused.

Outcome

Application for judicial review allowed; certiorari issued quashing the Commissioner's decision to rectify the land register

Facts

The applicants held interests in land at Masaka Buddu Block 367 Plot 3 based on court judgments dating from 1984 to 2017 that determined the land belonged to them or their predecessors in title. The 1st and 2nd respondents, sons of Yowana Yakuze who had lost multiple cases over the same land, lodged a complaint with the Commissioner for Land Registration alleging fraudulent registration by the applicants' predecessors. The Commissioner held a hearing and issued an order on 27 November 2018 rectifying the register by cancelling the applicants' registration and restoring it to the respondents' father. The applicants challenged this administrative decision by judicial review, arguing the Commissioner acted ultra vires and with an ulterior motive to reverse settled court judgments.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a valid and competent application on record in respect of the 1st, 3rd and 4th applicants?
  2. Whether in arriving at his decision, the 3rd respondent accorded the applicants a fair hearing?
  3. Whether the decision of the 3rd respondent was irrational, ultra vires and was made in contravention of the law?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application is valid and competently before court.
  • A declaratory order is issued that the actions and decision of the 3rd respondent in proceedings held at Kampala Land Office were irrational, ultra vires and irregularly made in contravention of the law.
  • An Order of Certiorari is issued quashing the decision of the 3rd respondent contained in the amendment order dated 27th November 2018.
  • No damages are awarded.
  • Costs of the application are granted to the applicants.
  • The 4th applicant's counsel is not awarded any costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Ultra Vires Acts — Exercise of Power for Unauthorised Purposes
Where a public authority exercises statutory powers for purposes not contemplated by the enabling statute, including reversing court judgments under the guise of rectifying a land register, such exercise is ultra vires and unlawful.
Judicial Review — Procedural Fairness — Right to Be Heard
A public authority satisfies the requirement of fair hearing when it provides the affected party with an opportunity to appear and make submissions, even where the authority does not accept those submissions or agree to refer legal questions to a higher court.
Judicial Review — Grounds for Review — Ulterior Motive and Abuse of Discretion
An administrative decision that is made within the apparent scope of statutory powers but is actuated by an ulterior motive to benefit parties who have lost their interests through multiple court decisions amounts to an abuse of discretion and is subject to quashing by certiorari.
Judicial Review — Locus Standi — Multiple Applicants
In an application for judicial review, where multiple applicants rely on the same facts and grounds of law, the failure by some applicants to depose separate affidavits is a mere irregularity that does not render the application incompetent, provided one applicant with sufficient knowledge of the facts has deponed an affidavit in support.
Judicial Review Remedies — Damages — Requirements for Award
In judicial review proceedings, damages are not awarded automatically. An applicant seeking compensation against a public body must establish that the unlawful action also constitutes a recognisable tort or involves a breach of contract. The mere fact that an act is ultra vires does not of itself entitle an individual to damages.
Land Registration — Rectification — Powers of Commissioner for Land Registration
The powers of the Commissioner for Land Registration under section 91 of the Land Act to rectify the land register are not intended to be exercised in a manner that defeats court judgments determining land ownership, particularly where such judgments are decades old and have achieved finality.
Affidavit Evidence — Joint Applications — Authority to Depose
Provisions of civil procedure law must be interpreted to subserve and advance the cause of justice rather than defeat it on mere technicalities. Every omission or mistake in practice or procedure should be regarded as an irregularity which the court can rectify, so long as it can do so without injustice and without abuse of court process.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (19)

  • John Jet Tunvwebaze v Makerere University Council and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 353 of 2005)
  • DOTT Services Ltd v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 125 of 2009)
  • Balondemu David v The Law Development Centre (Miscellaneous Cause No. 61 of 2016)
  • Commissioner of Land v Kunste Hotel Ltd [1995-1998] 1 EA (CAK)
  • Nteyafa Kaddu Mukasa and Another v Zion Construction (HCCS No. 901 of 2015)
  • Ready Agro Suppliers Limited v Uganda Development Bank (HCT-CC No. 039 of 2005)
  • Raj Narain v Indira Nehru Gandhi (1972)3 SCC 850
  • Harkness v Bell's Asbestos Ltd [1966] All ER 843
  • Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism v Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Limited 2004 (7) BCLR 687 (CC); 2004 (4) SA 490 (CC)
  • Johannesburg Stock Exchange v Witwatersrand Nigel Ltd 1988 (3) SA 132
  • Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA In Re:Ex Parte Application of President of the RSA 2000 (3) BCLR 241(CC)
  • R v Aston University Senate ex p Roffey [1969] 2 QB 558
  • R v Secretary of State for Health ex p Furneaux [1994] 2 All ER 652
  • Hajjat Janat Namugenyi Kayemba and Another v Kiyonga George Kirumira and 3 Others (HCCS No. 12 of 2014)
  • Victoria Nakabembe v Yowana Yakuze (Masaka C.S. No. 73 of 1984)
  • Yowana Yakuze v Victoria Nakabembe (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1986)
  • Victoria Nakabembe v John Jones Serwanga Salongo (Miscellaneous Application No. 17 of 1993)
  • Grace Namulondo and Hajjat Janat Namugenyi Kayemba v Kiyonga George and Others (HCCS No. 012 of 2014)
  • Nakitto Lucy v Patrick Senyonga (HCCS No. 170 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Grace Namulondo and 3 Others v Jone Johns Serwanga Salongo and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 001 of 2019) [2019] UGHCCD 327 (1 November 2019)
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.