Joseph Nabimanya Shillingi and Others v Commissioner Surveys and Mappings (Miscellaneous Cause No.128 of 2018)
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 where a public officer with statutory duty under section 150 of the Registration of Titles Act wrongfully resurveyed land belonging to estate administrators and subsumed it into another plot without consent, thereby depriving them of their registered interest, and subsequently participated in a resolution to restore the original plot, an order of mandamus will issue compelling the officer to restore the deed plan and reinstate the land to its original status. Public officers can be compelled to perform statutory duties.
Outcome
Order of Mandamus granted compelling respondent to restore deed plan within 30 days
Facts
The applicants are administrators of the estate of the late Odomaro Shillingi, which included land comprised in LRV 1184 Folio 8 Plot 45 Rwampara Block 1 measuring approximately 85.2 hectares, held under a 49-year lease issued in 1982 expiring in 2031. In 2010, the respondent irregularly resurveyed the land at the request of Mugisha Shillingi (brother to the applicants) and wrongly included it within the boundaries of a newly created Plot 252 Rwampara Block 1 measuring approximately 86.889 hectares. The applicants discovered this in 2015. On 2 June 2016, the respondent convened a meeting attended by the applicants, family members, and civic leaders at which it was resolved that the original Plot 45 be secured and reinstated. Despite this resolution and subsequent demands, the respondent failed to implement the decision. As a result, the applicants were unable to conclude a wayleave agreement with Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited for a government project on the land. The respondent did not oppose the application or file any affidavit in reply.
Issues
- Whether the respondent has a duty to reinstate/restore the said deed plan?
- Whether there is any alternative to the respondent restoring the said deed plan?
- Whether the applicant is entitled to the remedies sought?
Orders
- An Order of Mandamus issued compelling the respondent to restore the applicants' Plot 45 Rwampara Block 1 at Kushebuyege, Kagaga, Rugando measuring approximately 85.2 Hectares by issuing deed plans for the said land to restore its integrity to the applicants.
- The respondent is directed to effect the necessary changes within 30 days from the date of delivery of this ruling.
- The applicants should meet their costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Judicature Act s.36
- Judicature Act s.37
- Judicature Act s.38
- Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009 r.3
- Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009 r.5
- Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009 r.6
- Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009 r.7
- Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009 r.10
- Registration of Titles Act s.150
Cases cited (3)
- John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University and 2 Others (High Court Civil Application No. 78 of 2005)
- Hon Justice Geoffrey Kiryabwire and Others v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 783 of 2016)
- David Kato Luguza and Another v Evelyn Nakafeero and Another (High Court Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2011)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.