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 CAUSE NO 108 OF 2019) 2020 UGHCCD 62 (23 April 2

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 62 Judicial Review Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking certiorari to quash an order issued by the Commission of Inquiry
Decision
Order of the Commission of Inquiry quashed; applicant's rights to utilize her registered land restored

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

A Commission of Inquiry established under the Commissions of Inquiry Act is a fact-finding body with no adjudicative or enforcement powers. The Commission exceeded its statutory mandate by issuing an order directing the applicant to cease activities on her registered land. Such an order was ultra vires, illegal, and tainted with procedural impropriety. Commissions of Inquiry may investigate and report to the appointing authority but cannot issue binding orders affecting property rights. The order was quashed by certiorari.

Outcome

Order of the Commission of Inquiry quashed; applicant's rights to utilize her registered land restored

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 investigating land matters issued an order directing the applicant and others to cease all activities on the disputed land pending the Commission's ongoing investigation. The order was served through the Resident District Commissioner. The applicant was not given notice of the investigation, not informed of the complaint against her, and was afforded no opportunity to be heard before the order was issued. She filed this application for judicial review seeking certiorari to quash the order on grounds of illegality (the Commission acted ultra vires its statutory mandate) and procedural impropriety (breach of natural justice and Article 28 of the Constitution). The respondent opposed the application but filed an affidavit sworn by a State Attorney which the court struck off as containing no evidence of fact.

Issues

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

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • An Order of Certiorari quashing the Order dated 11th September 2018 issued against the applicant by the 1st respondent.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.
  • The affidavit in reply filed by the State Attorney on behalf of the respondents struck off the record.

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 merely a fact-finding body with no power of adjudication and cannot issue binding orders or directions affecting rights. Its function is to investigate, collect facts, and submit a report to the appointing authority; it does not decide disputes, produce documents of a judicial nature, or have enforcement powers.
Ultra Vires Acts — Orders Issued Outside Statutory Mandate
Where a Commission of Inquiry issues an order directing parties to cease activities on land, such an order is ultra vires and illegal because the Commission's statutory mandate under section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act is restricted to making inquiry and reporting to the appointing authority, and does not extend to issuing enforceable orders.
Grounds for Review — Illegality and Procedural Impropriety
Judicial review will lie where a public body acts outside the four corners of the enabling law. An order issued by a Commission of Inquiry beyond its statutory powers is tainted with illegality and procedural impropriety and is amenable to certiorari.
Nature of Commission of Inquiry Proceedings
An inquiry by a Commission of Inquiry is not an inquiry by a civil or criminal court; its proceedings are not equivalent to proceedings of a court of law. Its procedure is inquisitorial rather than accusatorial. Though section 9 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act clothes the Commission with certain powers of a civil court, it does not confer the status of a court on it.
Commission of Inquiry Reports — Non-Binding Nature
The report of a Commission of Inquiry is merely recommendatory and is not binding on the government. It is not enforceable proprio vigore. The government is under no legal or statutory obligation to accept the Commission's findings or implement its recommendations.
Affidavit Evidence — State Attorneys as Deponents
State Attorneys from the Attorney General's Chambers should not routinely swear affidavits in reply on behalf of government departments. 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. Where a State Attorney has no personal knowledge of the facts, the affidavit may be struck off.
Certiorari — Effect of the Order
The effect of an order of certiorari is to retrospectively invalidate the impugned decision and deprive it of all legal effect since its inception. Certiorari confirms that the decision is a nullity and sets it aside for being ultra vires or reached in excess or abuse of power.

Legislation cited (13)

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 (Court of Appeal 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 CAUSE NO 108 OF 2019) 2020 UGHCCD 62 (23 April 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.