Wakilii

Lwanga v The Commissioner Land Registration and Another (Miscellaneous Cause 5 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 273 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking certiorari to quash the Commissioner's decision registering the 2nd respondent as proprietor
Decision
Application dismissed on preliminary objection for prematurity and failure to exhaust statutory remedies

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 dismissed the application for judicial review on preliminary objection, holding that it was premature. Where an applicant is dissatisfied with a decision of the Registrar of Land Titles, the applicant must first exhaust the statutory remedy under Section 182(1) of the Registration of Titles Act by requiring the registrar to set forth grounds in writing and summoning the registrar before the High Court. Where the registrar acts pursuant to a court order, the appropriate remedy is an application for contempt of court, not judicial review.

Outcome

Application dismissed on preliminary objection for prematurity and failure to exhaust statutory remedies

Facts

The applicant sought judicial review to quash the Commissioner Land Registration's decision to register the 2nd respondent as proprietor of land comprised in Gomba Block 137 Plot 1. The applicant averred that on 27 November 2019, a court order was issued requiring the 1st respondent to cancel entries in the certificate of title made in contempt of earlier court orders in Civil Suit No. 358 of 2013. The applicant contended that the 1st respondent had only been ordered to cancel certain entries, but instead reinstated the 2nd respondent rather than Gideon Mberegenya whose estate the applicant represented. The 1st and 2nd respondents raised preliminary objections that the application should have been brought as contempt of court proceedings, that the applicant failed to exhaust remedies under Section 182 of the Registration of Titles Act, and that the application was filed out of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for judicial review was amenable to the jurisdiction of the court.
  2. Whether the applicant exhausted all available remedies under Section 182 of the Registration of Titles Act before instituting the application.
  3. Whether the proper remedy was an application for contempt of court rather than judicial review.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.
  • Right of appeal explained.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Amenability — Exhaustion of Remedies — Statutory Remedies
An application for judicial review must be brought as a last resort after all available statutory remedies have been exhausted. Where Section 182(1) of the Registration of Titles Act provides that an owner or proprietor dissatisfied with a decision of the registrar may require the registrar to set forth grounds in writing and summon the registrar before the High Court, that remedy must be pursued before seeking judicial review.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Acts Done Pursuant to Court Order
Where a registrar of land titles acts in pursuance of a court order rather than independently in an administrative capacity, the appropriate remedy for dissatisfaction with the registrar's implementation of the order is an application for contempt of court, not judicial review.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Prematurity of Proceedings
An application for judicial review is premature and will be dismissed where the applicant has not exploited the statutory remedies provided by law before resorting to judicial review proceedings.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (5)

  • Oil Sees (U) Ltd v Prince Kisani Secretary to the Treasury (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 136 of 2008)
  • Dr. Charles Twesigye v Kyambogo University (Miscellaneous Application No. 120 of 2017)
  • Fuelex Uganda Ltd v The Attorney General and Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 48 of 2014)
  • Dr. Daniel K.N. Semambo v National Animal Genetic Resource Centre (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 30 of 2017)
  • Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans [1982] 3 All ER 141

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lwanga_v_The_Commissioner_Land_Registration_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Cause_5_of_2022)_[2022]_UGHCLD_273_(25_May_2022)
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.