Wakilii

Kuldip Singh Dhami and Faze 2 Limited v Commissioner Land Registration [2019] UGHCCD 294

High Court · 2019 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking orders of prohibition and certiorari to quash respondent's decision amending land register
Decision
Amendment Order quashing applicant's land title set aside; applicants' right to be heard vindicated

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 Land Registration violated the applicants' constitutional right to be heard under Articles 28 and 42 when it amended the land register cancelling the applicant's title without proper service of notice and hearing. Service by ordinary post where alternative effective service was available constituted procedural impropriety. The court quashed the respondent's Amendment Order dated 9 January 2018 but declined to award damages, holding that damages are not granted automatically in judicial review proceedings and must be specifically proved.

Outcome

Amendment Order quashing applicant's land title set aside; applicants' right to be heard vindicated

Facts

The applicants were registered owners of land comprised in Plot 10 Nakasero Road, Kampala. The Departed Asian Property Custodian Board complained to the Commissioner Land Registration requesting changes to the register. On 7 December 2017, the Commissioner wrote to the applicant informing him of intention to amend the register and inviting him to a public hearing. The letter was sent by ordinary post to the applicant's postal address. A public hearing was held on 4 January 2018 in the applicant's absence. On 9 January 2018, the Commissioner issued an Amendment Order cancelling the applicant's title. The applicant learned of this decision in late January 2018. The applicant had lodged a caveat in 2016 providing an alternative address through his advocates and was no longer resident in Uganda, a fact known to the respondent.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants were accorded a right to be heard before the respondent arrived at the decision to amend the register by cancellation of the existing land title in the names of the 1st applicant.
  2. What remedies are available to the applicants?

Orders

  • The decision/order passed by the respondent made vide Amendment Order dated the 9th day of January 2018 is hereby quashed.
  • The application for damages is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Natural Justice — Right to Be Heard — Effective Service of Notice
Where an administrative body intends to make a decision affecting an individual's property rights, service of notice by ordinary post to a postal address is inadequate where the affected party has provided an alternative current address through legal representatives and the authority knows the party is not resident at the postal address.
Judicial Review — Procedural Impropriety — Fair Hearing — Service of Notice
Procedural impropriety arises when a decision-making authority fails to act fairly in the process of taking a decision, including failure to effectively serve notice of a hearing and proceeding in the absence of an affected party who was not properly notified.
Judicial Review — Certiorari — Effect — Retrospective Invalidation
An order of certiorari quashes an ultra vires decision, confirming that the decision is a nullity and retrospectively invalidating it, thereby depriving the decision of all legal effect since its inception.
Administrative Law — Damages in Judicial Review — Burden of Proof
Damages are not awarded automatically in judicial review proceedings; an applicant must specifically plead and prove the damages claimed with supporting evidence. It is insufficient merely to list particulars of damage without proof.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (12)

  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 353 of 2005)
  • DOTT Services Ltd v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 125 of 2009)
  • Balondetnu David v The Law Development Centre (Miscellaneous Cause No. 61 of 2016)
  • Commissioner of Land v Kunste Hotel Ltd [1995-1998] 1 EA (CAK)
  • Council of Civil Service Union v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374
  • Bwowe Ivan and Others v Makerere University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 252 and 265 of 2013)
  • Twinomuhangi v Kabale District and Others [2006] HCB 130
  • R v Aston University Senate ex p Roffey [1969] 2 QB 558
  • R v Secretary of State for Health ex p Furneaux [1994] 2 All ER 652
  • Cocks v Thanet District Council [1983] 2 AC 286
  • Bendicto Musisi v Attorney General (HCCS No. 622 of 1989) [1996] 1 KALR 164
  • Rosemary Nalwadda v Uganda Aids Commission (HCCS No. 67 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kuldip Singh Dhami and Faze 2 Limited v Commissioner Land Registration 2019 UGHCCD 294 (8 February 2019)
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.