Wakilii

Lillian Kabasesera and Another v Commissioner Land Registration and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 864 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 66 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of a ruling in Misc. Cause No. 64 of 2025 to correct the description of land titles
Decision
Application for review granted; corrected orders issued quashing the Commissioner's Amendment Order and reinstating the applicants as registered proprietors of the correctly described 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

The High Court allowed an application for review to correct an error in the description of land titles in a prior ruling. The court found that the original ruling incorrectly identified one plot as Plot 1059 instead of Plot 1519. The Commissioner for Land Registration admitted the error. The court issued corrected orders quashing the Commissioner's Amendment Order dated 16 December 2024 and reinstating the applicants as registered proprietors of the correctly described land.

Outcome

Application for review granted; corrected orders issued quashing the Commissioner's Amendment Order and reinstating the applicants as registered proprietors of the correctly described land

Facts

The applicants sought review of a ruling in Misc. Cause No. 64 of 2025 to correct an error in the description of land titles. The first applicant, Lillian Kabasesera, held certificates of title for land comprised in Busiro Block 397 Plot 1609 and Plot 1519, both at Bweya. The original ruling incorrectly referred to one plot as Plot 1059 instead of Plot 1519. The Commissioner for Land Registration had issued an Amendment Order dated 16 December 2024 cancelling the applicants' certificates of title. The Commissioner admitted the error in the plot description and did not oppose the review application. The court heard the application on 5 March 2026.

Issues

  1. Whether the application meets the criteria for review of the ruling in Misc. Cause No. 64 of 2025.

Orders

  • Application for review of the ruling in Misc. Cause No. 64 of 2025 dated 10 September 2025 is allowed.
  • The cancellation of the certificates of title for land comprised in Busiro Block 397 Plot 1609 Land at Bweya and Busiro Block 397 Plot 1519 Land at Bweya registered in the name of Lillian Kabasesera by an Amendment Order dated 16th December 2024 is illegal, irrational, ultra vires, and an abuse of power.
  • The cancellation of the certificate of title for land comprised in Busiro Block 397 Plot 507 registered in the name of Namuwenge Sarah by an Amendment Order dated 16th December 2024 is illegal, irrational, ultra vires, and an abuse of power.
  • An Order of Certiorari is hereby issued quashing the Amendment Order issued by the Commissioner for Land Registration dated 16th December 2024.
  • An Order of Mandamus is hereby issued compelling the Commissioner for Land Registration to reinstate Lillian Kabasesera as the registered proprietor of the land comprised in Busiro Block 397 Plot 1609 Land at Bweya and Busiro Block 397 Plot 1519 Land at Bweya.
  • An Order of Prohibition is hereby issued restraining the Commissioner for Land Registration from effecting the decision in the Amendment Order dated 16th December 2024.
  • An injunction is hereby issued restraining the Commissioner for Land Registration from effecting or implementing the Amendment Order dated 16th December 2024.
  • Each party shall meet its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Grounds for Review
For an applicant to succeed in an application for review of a judgment, they must show either that there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or that there is discovery of new and important evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced at the time when the decree was passed, or that any other sufficient reason exists.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Correction of Clerical Errors
Where a court ruling contains an error in the description of land titles and the error is admitted by the respondent, the court may grant an application for review to correct the error and issue corrected orders reflecting the accurate land description.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (1)

  • FX Mubukuke v UEB (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lillian Kabasesera and Another v Commissioner Land Registration and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 864 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 66 (17 March 2026)
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.