Wakilii

Lukonge Cotton Company Limited v Commissioner Land Registration and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1351 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of an ex parte ruling affecting applicant's registered land title, arising from earlier civil appeal proceedings
Decision
Ex parte ruling set aside; applicant added as party to underlying proceedings for rehearing

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 granted the application for review and set aside the ex parte ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 211 of 2020. The court held that the applicant, as registered proprietor of the disputed land at the material time, was an aggrieved person entitled to review. The court found sufficient cause for review because the applicant was not made a party to proceedings that resulted in cancellation of its name from the certificate of title, thereby violating its constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution.

Outcome

Ex parte ruling set aside; applicant added as party to underlying proceedings for rehearing

Facts

Lukonge Cotton Company Limited was the registered proprietor of land comprised in LRV JJA414 Folio 22 Plot 68-72 at Masese Jinja, having been registered on 5th August 2020. On 5th October 2020, Hardrock Quarry (U) Limited filed Miscellaneous Application No. 211 of 2020 seeking to vary an earlier court order to reflect a change in the land description and to be reinstated as proprietor. The application was heard and granted ex parte on 18th May 2021, resulting in the Commissioner Land Registration reinstating Hardrock Quarry as proprietor and cancelling Lukonge Cotton Company's name from the certificate of title. Lukonge Cotton Company was never made a party to those proceedings despite being the registered proprietor at the time. The company then brought this application for review, arguing it had been deprived of its property interest without a fair hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether this Application meets the criteria for the grant of an application for review.
  2. Whether the 3rd Respondent's affidavits in reply are fatally defective and should be struck off the record.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The ruling and orders in Miscellaneous Application No. 211 of 2020 are set aside.
  • The Applicant is hereby added as a party to Miscellaneous Application No. 211 of 2020 as one of the Respondents.
  • Costs are awarded to the Applicant.
  • The 3rd Respondent's Affidavit in Reply to the Applicant's Supplementary Affidavit deponed on 18th June 2024 is struck off the record.

Rules and key headnotes

Review — Locus Standi — Aggrieved Person
A person is an aggrieved person entitled to apply for review where a court order has deprived them of a legal right, including where their name as registered proprietor of land has been cancelled from a certificate of title pursuant to proceedings in which they were not made a party.
Review — Sufficient Cause — Fair Hearing
Sufficient cause exists to warrant review of an ex parte order where the applicant was not given a fair hearing because they were not added as a party to proceedings that affected their proprietary rights, even though the party instituting those proceedings had notice that the applicant was the registered proprietor of the land in dispute.
Fair Hearing — Right to be Heard — Property Rights
Issuance of an order affecting the current registered proprietor of land in proceedings to which that proprietor is not a party amounts to procedural impropriety and violates the constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution.
Affidavits — Defective Affidavits — Oaths Act Compliance
An affidavit is fatally defective where the person who purports to swear the affidavit is not the same as the person who appended the signature, as this constitutes failure to comply with statutory requirements under the Oaths Act and the Commissioner for Oaths Act, and leaves the court uncertain whether the affirmant actually appeared before the Commissioner for Oaths.
Affidavits — Distinction Between Defective Affidavit and Statutory Non-Compliance
A distinction must be drawn between a defective affidavit (such as where the deponent did not sign or date the affidavit) and failure to comply with a statutory requirement; the latter is fatal and invalidates the affidavit.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (6)

  • Kasaala Growers Cooperative Society v Kakooza Jonathan and Another (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 19 of 2010)
  • Mohamed Alibhai v W.E Bukenya Mukasa and the Departed Asians Custodian Board (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Kabagambe v Mbabazi (Miscellaneous Application No. 002 of 2022)
  • Tinyefuza v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1996)
  • Charles Twagira v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2003)
  • M/S TAD Beer Trading Center (U) Ltd v Caroline Blackburn Aniero (Miscellaneous Application No. 0571 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lukonge Cotton Company Limited v Commissioner Land Registration and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 1351 (14 July 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.