Wakilii

Katende William Ssalongo v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause 26 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 117 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review challenging the Commissioner Land Registration's decision to cancel the applicant's certificate of title
Decision
Application granted. Applicant reinstated as registered owner. Commissioner ordered to pay general damages of UGX 50,000,000 and costs.

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

The High Court held that the Commissioner for Land Registration acted without jurisdiction in cancelling the applicant's certificate of title on grounds of fraud. Under Section 88 of the Land Act and binding Supreme Court authority, only the High Court has jurisdiction to cancel certificates of title where fraud is alleged. The Commissioner's jurisdiction is limited to clear cases of error. The court further held that the Commissioner breached the applicant's right to a fair hearing by failing to effect personal service of the notice of public hearing. The Amendment Order was quashed and the applicant reinstated as registered owner.

Outcome

Application granted. Applicant reinstated as registered owner. Commissioner ordered to pay general damages of UGX 50,000,000 and costs.

Facts

The applicant purchased land comprised in Busiro Block 489 Plot 67 from Wamala Fredrick in 1997, took possession, subdivided it into several plots including Plots 202 and 203, and developed a residential house and school. In 2025, the applicant discovered that the Commissioner for Land Registration had cancelled his certificates of title following a complaint by Nasanga Rozi, administrator of the estate of the late Yonasani Bate. The complainant alleged that the land had been transferred to Wamala Fredrick in 1996 after both Yonasani Bate (died 1978) and Wamala Fredrick (died 6 November 1996) were deceased, and that the subsequent transfer to the applicant was illegal. The Commissioner issued an Amendment Order on 17 October 2024 cancelling the applicant's title and reinstating the land in the name of Yonasani Bate. The applicant contended he was not given notice of or opportunity to attend a public hearing before the cancellation.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is amenable to judicial review.
  2. Whether the respondent's decision to cancel the applicant's certificates of title is illegal, irrational and unlawful.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Amendment Order dated 17th October 2024 issued by the Commissioner for Land Registration cancelling certificates of title for land comprised in Busiro Block 489 Plots 202 & 203 land at Kasuku, Sisa is tainted with illegality and therefore null and void.
  • An order of certiorari is hereby issued quashing the Amendment Order dated 17th October 2024 issued by the Commissioner for Land Registration in respect of land comprised in Busiro Block 489 Plots 202 & 203 land at Kasuku, Sisa.
  • The Commissioner for Land Registration is ordered to reinstate Katende William Ssalongo as the registered owner of land comprised in Busiro Block 489 Plots 202 & 203 land at Kasuku, Sisa.
  • The Commissioner for Land Registration shall pay to the applicant general damages of UGX 50,000,000.
  • The Commissioner for Land Registration shall pay the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Jurisdiction of Commissioner for Land Registration — Cancellation of Certificate of Title on Grounds of Fraud
The Commissioner for Land Registration has no jurisdiction under Section 88 of the Land Act to cancel a certificate of title on grounds of fraud. The Commissioner's jurisdiction is limited to clear cases of error or the specific instances enumerated in Section 88(2). Only the High Court has jurisdiction to direct cancellation of a certificate of title where fraud is alleged, as such matters require the rigours of a full trial including cross-examination of witnesses.
Land Registration — Powers of Commissioner — Distinction Between Error and Fraud
An error under Section 88(2)(a) of the Land Act connotes a mistake of the Registrar and not an action based on an instrument lodged by a party which the Registrar believed to be genuine. The error envisaged is necessarily the error of the Registrar in issuing the certificate, not fraud by a transferee. Where the slightest element of fraud is involved, the Commissioner's jurisdiction ceases.
Natural Justice — Right to Fair Hearing — Audi Alteram Partem
The right to a fair hearing is a cardinal rule of administrative law and is non-derogable. Under Section 88(10) of the Land Act, the Commissioner for Land Registration must give not less than twenty-one days' notice to any party likely to be affected by a decision and provide an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the rules of natural justice. No person should be condemned unheard.
Service of Notice — Effectiveness of Substituted Service — Personal Service Where Physical Address Known
Where the physical address of a party is known, the Commissioner for Land Registration must effect personal service of a notice of public hearing on all parties with an interest in the land. Although substituted service by newspaper advertisement and postal address is lawful, it is not necessarily effective in notifying affected parties. Substituted service will be rendered ineffective if it does not produce the desired result of bringing the notice to the attention of the affected party.
Judicial Review — Grounds for Quashing Administrative Decision — Illegality and Procedural Impropriety
An administrative decision is subject to judicial review on three grounds: illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. Where a public body acts without jurisdiction or in breach of mandatory procedural requirements such as the right to a fair hearing, the decision is tainted with illegality and may be quashed by certiorari.
General Damages — Award for Pain, Suffering and Inconvenience — Administrative Wrongdoing
General damages are the direct, natural or probable consequence of the wrongful act complained of and include damages for pain, suffering and inconvenience. Where a public body acts illegally and occasions unnecessary pain, suffering and inconvenience to a party, general damages may be awarded under Article 126(2)(c) of the Constitution. The court may consider aggravating factors such as the uttering of forged documents in assessing quantum.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (10)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Katende William Ssalongo v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause 26 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 117 (7 August 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.