Wakilii

International Business Science & Technology (ISBAT) University v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 827 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 213 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to file judicial review proceedings arising from cancellation of certificate of title
Decision
Extension of time granted; judicial review application validated as filed

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 applicant demonstrated good reason for delay in filing judicial review proceedings where the applicant pursued administrative remedies in good faith through the Minister of Lands and State House Anti-Corruption Unit, and where the intended judicial review raises serious questions of illegality, procedural impropriety, and breach of the constitutional right to a fair hearing. Extension of time granted.

Outcome

Extension of time granted; judicial review application validated as filed

Facts

The applicant was the registered proprietor of land comprised in LRV KCCA 208 Folio 2 Plot No. 54 at Naguru Drive, having acquired the certificate of title on 31 May 2016. In 2017, the applicant discovered a competing title created in 2011 and applied to the Commissioner Land Registration for cancellation of that title. The Commissioner ignored the applicant's complaint but on 18 July 2023 cancelled the applicant's title in favour of the 3rd and 4th respondents without prior notice or hearing. The applicant learned of the cancellation when the 3rd and 4th respondents demanded eviction. The applicant then engaged government agencies including the Minister of Lands and State House Anti-Corruption Unit. A State House report issued in April 2025 confirmed the cancellation was unlawful. The applicant filed judicial review proceedings in September 2025, outside the three-month statutory period, and subsequently applied for extension of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has demonstrated good reason for the delay in filing the application for judicial review beyond the statutory three-month period.
  2. Whether the intended judicial review application raises sufficiently meritorious issues to justify extension of time notwithstanding the lack of promptness.
  3. Whether the applicant's pursuit of administrative remedies constitutes good reason for the delay in filing judicial review proceedings.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Miscellaneous Cause No. 0264 of 2025 validated as filed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Extension of Time — Good Reason — Pursuit of Administrative Remedies
Where an applicant pursues administrative remedies in good faith through government agencies before resorting to court, such pursuit constitutes good reason for delay in filing judicial review proceedings beyond the statutory three-month period under section 40(7) of the Judicature Act.
Judicial Review — Extension of Time — Factors for Consideration
In determining whether to extend time for filing judicial review proceedings, the court will consider: (a) length of delay, (b) reasons for delay, (c) merits of the application, (d) egregiousness of alleged flaws in the decision-making process, (e) whether breaches of fundamental rights are implicated, (f) compelling public interest considerations, (g) the overriding principle that justice is to be done, and (h) importance of the issues involved in the challenge.
Administrative Law — Natural Justice — Right to Fair Hearing — Cancellation of Title
Where a Registrar of Titles cancels a registered proprietor's certificate of title without according prior notice or opportunity to be heard, such action raises serious questions of procedural impropriety and breach of the constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 28(1) of the Constitution, warranting extension of time to challenge the decision by judicial review.
Judicial Review — Extension of Time — Public Interest Considerations
Where an application for judicial review involves public administration and management of land registration, the public interest nature of the issues raised is a relevant factor favouring extension of time, as matters of great importance deserve consideration by the court.
Judicial Review — Extension of Time — Technical Application of Rules
The provisions governing extension of time for judicial review should not be applied in a technical manner so as to deny relief to an otherwise worthy claimant, and delay as a bar to judicial review must be considered against the background of the constitutional importance of judicial review as a means of vindicating the rule of law.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (6)

  • Nabatanzi Joyce v Makerere University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 178 of 2019)
  • Twinomugisha v Makerere University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 7 of 2005)
  • Dr. Akampumuza and Another v Makerere University Business School and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 514 of 2012)
  • R (Andrew Finn-Kelcey) v Milton Keynes Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 1067
  • Maharaj v National Energy Corporation of Trinidad & Tobago [2019] UPKC 5
  • Hon Justice Anup Singh Choudry v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 57 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

International Business Science & Technology (ISBAT) University v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 827 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 213 (28 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.