Wakilii

Kategaya & Another v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Application 116 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 290 · 2024 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 application out of time, arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 37 of 2022
Decision
Application granted; judicial review application validated; matter to proceed

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 lack of knowledge of an adverse decision is a strong factor influencing the grant of an extension of time for judicial review. Where applicants were not notified of the Commissioner's cancellation of their certificate of title and only discovered it after the three-month limitation period had expired, and their former lawyers inadvertently filed the judicial review application without first seeking leave to file out of time, the court has discretion to extend time or validate the application where good reason is shown and the respondent is not prejudiced.

Outcome

Application granted; judicial review application validated; matter to proceed

Facts

On 25th April 2019, the Commissioner Land Registration cancelled the applicants' certificate of title for Freehold Register Volume Msk 229 Folio 5, Block 59 Plot 12 at Kirebe B, Kabula, Lyantonde District. The applicants were not invited to any hearing preceding the cancellation and were not notified of the decision. On 20th October 2022, the second applicant discovered the cancellation when she visited the Land Registry. Upon learning of the decision, the applicants instructed M/s B Edward & Co. Advocates who filed an application for judicial review on 2nd November 2022 without first seeking leave to file out of time. The applicants then engaged M/s Tamale & Co. Advocates who filed this application seeking extension of time or validation of the earlier application. The respondent was served but did not file an affidavit in reply.

Issues

  1. Whether there is good reason for the extension of time within which to make the Application for judicial review or to validate the already filed Application.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The Application for Judicial Review in Miscellaneous Cause No. 37 of 2022 filed on 2nd November 2022 is adopted and validated.
  • Parties to appear in Court on 18th April 2024.
  • No orders as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Extension of Time — Lack of Knowledge of Decision
Lack of knowledge of an adverse administrative decision is a strong factor influencing the court's decision whether an extension of time for bringing an application for judicial review should be granted.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Discretionary Power
Under Rule 5(1) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 and Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court has discretion to extend the three-month limitation period for filing judicial review applications where there is good reason, even where the period originally fixed has expired.
Administrative Law — Natural Justice — Notice of Decision
Where an applicant was neither invited to a hearing preceding an administrative decision nor notified of that decision, and only discovered the decision after the limitation period for judicial review had expired, this constitutes good reason for extending time to file judicial review proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Uncontroverted Evidence
Where facts are sworn to in an affidavit and are not denied or rebutted by the opposite party despite being served with the application, the presumption is that such facts are accepted and the uncontroverted evidence will be deemed admitted.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

  • Dott Services Ltd and Another v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 133 of 2016)
  • Sadruddin Valmohamed v Departed Asians Custodian Board and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 66 of 2020)
  • Energo Projekt v Brigadier Kasirye Ggwanga (HCMA No. 558 of 2009)
  • Samwiri Mussa v Rose Achen (1978) HCB 297
  • Lieutenant George Kiggundu v Attorney General (HCCS No. 386 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kategaya & Another v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Application 116 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 290 (9 April 2024)
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.