Wakilii

In The Matter of an Application for Order of Certiorari and Prohibition by Mustapha Ramathan v Honourable Minister of Finance and Economic Planning (M(2)

High Court · [1996] UGHC 230 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex parte application for leave to apply for orders of certiorari and prohibition
Decision
Leave to apply for certiorari and prohibition refused; applicant may seek other remedies

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 an ex parte application for leave to apply for orders of certiorari and prohibition. The application for certiorari against the Minister of Finance was time-barred under section 34(6) of the Judicature Act, having been filed more than six months after the repossession order. The court held that prerogative jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be invoked where a statutory right of appeal exists under the Expropriated Properties Act. The writs were also inappropriate against the Commissioner for Land Registration who merely followed statutory duty, and the proper remedy lay in rectification under the Registration of Titles Act. Prohibition could not issue against the third respondent as registration had already been completed.

Outcome

Leave to apply for certiorari and prohibition refused; applicant may seek other remedies

Facts

The applicant, a former Minister, purchased Plot 5 Mackenzie Vale from the Departed Asian Custodian Board in 1974 and was registered as proprietor. After enactment of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982, the property was successfully claimed by its former owner (the third respondent). The Minister of Finance issued a repossession order on 16 October 1995, and the third respondent was registered as proprietor on 3 November 1995. The applicant was never compensated for loss of his proprietary interest. The applicant filed this application on 25 April 1996 seeking leave to apply for certiorari to quash the repossession order and prohibition to prevent the third respondent from taking possession, claiming infringement of constitutional rights.

Issues

  1. Whether leave to apply for certiorari should be granted where the application was filed after the six-month statutory limitation period prescribed by section 34(6) of the Judicature Act.
  2. Whether the prerogative jurisdiction of the court can be invoked where a statutory remedy by way of appeal is available under section 14 of the Expropriated Properties Act.
  3. Whether certiorari and prohibition are appropriate remedies against the Commissioner for Land Registration who acted in accordance with statutory duty.
  4. Whether prohibition can issue against a registered proprietor to prevent taking possession after registration has been completed.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Certiorari — Limitation Period — Six-Month Rule
Leave to apply for an order of certiorari to remove a judgment, order, decree, conviction or other proceeding for the purpose of quashing cannot be granted unless the application for leave is made not later than six months after the date of the proceeding, as mandatorily prescribed by section 34(6) of the Judicature Act 1967.
Administrative Law — Prerogative Remedies — Alternative Statutory Remedy Available
The prerogative jurisdiction of the court cannot ordinarily be invoked where a statutory remedy by way of appeal is available. Where the Expropriated Properties Act provides a statutory right of appeal under section 14, an aggrieved party must pursue that remedy rather than seek judicial review.
Administrative Law — Certiorari — Inapplicability to Ministerial Acts
Certiorari is not an appropriate remedy against an official who acts purely in accordance with statutory duty without exercising any discretionary decision-making power. Where the Commissioner for Land Registration merely follows the statutory mandate to transfer title upon presentation of a repossession certificate under the Expropriated Properties Act, certiorari does not lie.
Land & Property — Registration of Title — Rectification as Proper Remedy
Where a registered proprietor's interest has been improperly registered, the proper remedy lies in rectification of the register under section 185 of the Registration of Titles Act, not in an application for certiorari to quash the registration.
Administrative Law — Prohibition — Inapplicability After Completion of Act
Prohibition is by its nature a preventive remedy, not a corrective one. Once an act complained of is complete, there is nothing left to prohibit and the remedy becomes irrelevant. Prohibition cannot issue to undo a registration already effected.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (3)

  • Re Gideon Wawern Gatunguri [1962] E.A. 520
  • Re Attorney General of Tanganyika [1958] E.A. 482
  • Kantibhai Aryat Kantitbhai Maribha Patel v Minister of Finance & Economic Planning (Miscellaneous Application No. 75 of 1994)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

In The Matter of an Application for Order of Certiorari and Prohibition by Mustapha Ramathan v Honourable Minister of Finance and Economic Planning (M(2)
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.