Wakilii

Kabugo v THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY(effectiveness of law, policies and processes of land acquisition, land administration, land management and land registration in Uganda) & Another (MISCELLANEOUS CAUS

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 108 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review challenging an order issued by a Commission of Inquiry
Decision
Order of certiorari granted quashing the Commission's order; applicant free to utilize her land

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 a Commission of Inquiry established under the Commissions of Inquiry Act is a fact-finding body with no power to adjudicate disputes or issue binding orders. The Commission exceeded its statutory mandate when it issued an order prohibiting the applicant from utilizing her registered land. The Commission's statutory authority under section 6 is restricted to conducting inquiries and reporting findings to the appointing authority; it has no power to make orders affecting property rights. The order was therefore ultra vires, tainted with illegality and procedural impropriety, and must be quashed by certiorari.

Outcome

Order of certiorari granted quashing the Commission's order; applicant free to utilize her land

Facts

The applicant is the registered proprietor of land comprised in Ssese Block 134, Plot 2 at Mumyuka, Bugala. On 11 September 2018, the Commission of Inquiry into land matters issued an order directing the applicant and others to cease all activities on the disputed land to accommodate an ongoing investigation. The order was issued without notice to or hearing of the applicant. The Commission stated it had received a complaint and was investigating matters concerning the land. The applicant challenged the order by way of judicial review, alleging the Commission acted ultra vires its statutory mandate under the Commissions of Inquiry Act and breached her right to a fair hearing under Articles 28, 42 and 44 of the Constitution.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises any grounds for judicial review?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • An Order of Certiorari quashing the ORDER dated 11th September 2018 issued against the applicant by the 1st respondent.
  • Application allowed with costs.
  • Affidavit in reply by State Attorney struck off.

Rules and key headnotes

Commissions of Inquiry — Statutory Powers and Limitations
A Commission of Inquiry established under the Commissions of Inquiry Act Cap 166 is a fact-finding body with no power of adjudication. Its statutory mandate under section 6 is restricted to making a full, faithful and impartial inquiry into specified matters and reporting findings to the appointing authority. It has no power to pronounce binding judgments or issue enforceable orders.
Commissions of Inquiry — Distinction from Courts
Though section 9 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act clothes a commission with certain powers of a civil court (including power to summon witnesses and examine on oath), it does not confer the status of a court. The commission's proceedings are inquisitorial rather than accusatorial; there is no lis, no accused, no specific charges, and its report is merely recommendatory and not enforceable proprio vigore.
Grounds — Illegality and Ultra Vires Acts
Where a public body acts outside the four corners of its enabling statute or its terms of reference, it acts illegally and in abuse of the authority conferred. An order issued by a Commission of Inquiry restraining a landowner from utilizing her registered land is ultra vires and illegal, as the Commission has no mandate to issue such orders under the Commissions of Inquiry Act.
Certiorari — Purpose and Effect
The primary purpose of an order of certiorari is to quash an ultra vires decision by confirming that the decision is a nullity and depriving it of all legal effect. Certiorari is the means of controlling unlawful exercises of power by setting aside decisions reached in excess or abuse of power. The decision is retrospectively invalidated since its inception.
Affidavits — Deponents from Attorney General's Chambers
Under Order 19 rule 3, affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his or her own knowledge to prove. State Attorneys from the Attorney General's Chambers who lack sufficient knowledge of the facts in a particular case should not swear affidavits in opposition. If government cannot produce witnesses with personal knowledge, the matter may be opposed on law but not on the facts presented.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (10)

  • Dott Services & Anor v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 137 of 2016)
  • Shammbhu Nath Jha v Kedar Prasad [1972] AIR SC 1515
  • Kehar Singh v Delhi Administration, AIR [1988] SC 1883: [1988] 3 SCC 609
  • Shamkant v State of Maharashtra [1992] AIR SC 1879
  • Frances Namara & 61 Others v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 86 of 2019)
  • Attorney General v Walugembe Daniel (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 290 of 2018)
  • R vs Aston University Senate ex p Roffey [1969] 2 QB 558
  • R vs Secretary of State for Health ex p Furneaux [1994] 2 All ER 652
  • Cocks vs Thanet District council [1983] 2 AC 286
  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 353 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kabugo v THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY(effectiveness of law, policies and processes of land acquisition, land administration, land management and land registration in Uganda) & Another (MISCELLANEOUS CAUS
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.