Wakilii

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

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1459 · 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 that ordered reinstatement of a party on a certificate of title, arising from Civil Appeal No. 115 of 2015
Decision
The ex parte ruling that ordered reinstatement of the 3rd Respondent on the certificate of title was set aside, and the Applicant was added as a party to the original application for a fresh hearing

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 an applicant who was the registered proprietor of land at the time an ex parte order was made cancelling its title without being joined as a party is an aggrieved person entitled to seek review. The court found that the failure to join the registered proprietor violated the constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution, constituting sufficient cause for review. The ruling in the ex parte application was set aside and the applicant was added as a respondent to the original application.

Outcome

The ex parte ruling that ordered reinstatement of the 3rd Respondent on the certificate of title was set aside, and the Applicant was added as a party to the original application for a fresh hearing

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 5 August 2020. On 5 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 18 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 joined as a party to the application despite being the registered proprietor at the time the application was filed. Lukonge Cotton Company then brought this application for review, arguing it had been deprived of its proprietary rights without a fair hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the application meets the criteria for the grant of an application for review.
  2. Whether the 3rd Respondent's affidavits in reply are 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.

Rules and key headnotes

Review — Locus Standi — Aggrieved Person
A person who was the registered proprietor of land at the time an ex parte order was made cancelling their title and reinstating another party as proprietor, without being joined as a party to the application, is an aggrieved person with standing to bring an application for review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Review — Sufficient Cause — Fair Hearing
The failure to join a registered proprietor as a party to proceedings that result in the cancellation of their title constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution and amounts to sufficient cause for review, even in the absence of new evidence or error apparent on the face of the record.
Affidavits — Defective Affidavits — Oaths Act Compliance
An affidavit is fatally defective where the person named as the deponent in the body of the affidavit is not the same person who signed and affirmed it before the Commissioner for Oaths, as this constitutes failure to comply with the statutory requirements of the Oaths Act and the Commissioner for Oaths Act.
Land Registration — Proprietary Rights — Procedural Fairness
Issuance of an order affecting the proprietary rights of a current registered proprietor in proceedings to which that proprietor is not a party amounts to procedural impropriety and violates the proprietor's constitutional right to a fair hearing, regardless of any allegations about the legality of the proprietor's title.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (6)

  • 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)
  • Kasaala Growers Cooperative Society v Kakooza Jonathan and Another (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 19 of 2010)
  • 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 Amero (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 1459 (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.