Wakilii

Marwa Properties Ltd v Commissioner Land Registration and Others (Civil Appeal 86 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 38 · 2026 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from decision of Commissioner Land Registration cancelling appellant's certificate of title
Decision
Amendment Order set aside; appellant reinstated as registered proprietor

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 the appeal and set aside the Commissioner Land Registration's Amendment Order cancelling the appellant's certificate of title. The court held that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to determine the application where the land had been the subject of a prior court decision, and where the allegations were grounded in fraud requiring a full trial with cross-examination. The Commissioner's power under Section 91 of the Land Act is limited to correcting errors of the Registrar, not errors of transferees or third parties, and does not extend to determining contested ownership or fraud allegations. The court ordered reinstatement of the appellant as registered proprietor.

Outcome

Amendment Order set aside; appellant reinstated as registered proprietor

Facts

The appellant was registered as proprietor of land comprised in Leasehold Register Volume 836 Folio 14 on 13 April 2015, having purchased it from Tom Kigoonya Kaaya. The appellant took physical occupation and remained in possession since 2015. In March 2024, the 2nd and 3rd respondents, claiming to be administrators of the estate of the late Ignatius Kangave Musaazi, applied to the Commissioner Land Registration for cancellation of the appellant's certificate of title. On 4 September 2024, the Commissioner issued an Amendment Order removing the appellant's entry from the register. The 2nd and 3rd respondents alleged that the transfer was fraudulent, that signatures on the transfer form were forged, that one administrator had died before the transfer, and that transactions occurred during the subsistence of caveats. The same land had been the subject of High Court Civil Suit No. 331 of 2017, in which the court found no fraud in the appellant's purchase.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in reply sworn by Mr. Luyima Jabaru on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondents is competent.
  2. Whether the instant appeal is time barred under Section 88(12) of the Land Act.
  3. Whether the instant appeal is res judicata.
  4. Whether the instant appeal is an abuse of court process.
  5. Whether the 2nd and 3rd respondents had locus standi to petition the 1st respondent for cancellation of the appellant's certificate of title.
  6. Whether the 1st respondent (Commissioner Land Registration) had jurisdiction to hear and determine the application for cancellation of the appellant's certificate of title.
  7. Whether the 1st respondent had jurisdiction to cancel a certificate of title based on allegations of fraud.
  8. Whether the appellant was denied a right to a fair hearing under Articles 28 and 44 of the Constitution.

Orders

  • The decision in Amendment Order dated 04/09/2024 is hereby set aside for lack of jurisdiction.
  • The 1st respondent is hereby ordered to reinstate the applicant Marwa Properties Ltd onto the register as the registered proprietor of the land comprised in Leasehold Register Volume 836 Folio 14 land at Bugulumazi Bulemezi Block 928 Plot 2.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Land Registration — Jurisdiction of Commissioner Land Registration — Limits on Power to Cancel Certificate of Title
Where a court has determined a matter concerning land and a person subsequently files an application before the Commissioner Land Registration, the Commissioner cannot exercise any powers at that point unless giving effect to the decision of the court.
Land Registration — Commissioner's Power under Section 91 Land Act — Errors of the Registrar versus Errors of Third Parties
The error envisaged under Section 91(2)(a) of the Land Act is necessarily the error of the Registrar and not of a transferee in title unless the name of the transferee was entered in error and not on the basis of an instrument of transfer properly registered as such. The power of the Registrar does not extend to cancellation due to the action of third parties transferring the land.
Land Registration — Fraud Allegations — Requirement for Full Trial
The Commissioner Land Registration, who may exercise quasi-judicial powers, does not have the capacity to hear a matter involving fraud and make findings without calling evidence including cross-examination of witnesses alleging fraud. An aggrieved party complaining of fraud should file a suit for adjudication on the issue.
Jurisdiction — Decisions Made Without Jurisdiction — Effect
A decision made by a tribunal or a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and void ab initio.
Affidavits — Competence of Advocate to Swear Affidavit
Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations only prohibits an advocate from swearing an affidavit in a case which he or she is in personal conduct. An advocate is not prohibited from swearing an affidavit where necessary, especially on matters that are well within his or her knowledge, in a case where he or she is not the advocate of record.
Limitation — Commencement of Appeal Period under Section 88(12) Land Act
Under Section 88(12) of the Land Act, the sixty-day appeal period does not commence until the decision has been properly communicated in writing to the aggrieved party, regardless of any prior awareness of the decision. The use of the word 'communicated' is deliberate and indicates Parliament's intention that the period starts to run after formal communication.
Res Judicata — Application to Judicial Review Proceedings
It is doubtful whether the ordinary doctrine of res judicata applies to judicial review proceedings, as judicial review remedies are a special class designed to maintain due order in the legal system and may fall outside the ambit of the ordinary doctrine. A determination in judicial review may not be a determination of the matter on merits giving rise to finality in litigation.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (28)

  • Simon Tendo Kabenge Advocates v Mineral Access Systems (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 565 of 2011)
  • Raila Odinga and Others v William Ruto (Consolidated Presidential Election Petition No. 005, E002, E003, E004, E007 and E008 of 2022)
  • Abdalla Musa and Others v Fatuma Musa (Miscellaneous Application No. 250 of 2022)
  • Kaheru Yasin and Another v Zinorumuri David (Miscellaneous Application No. 82 of 2017)
  • Muyima Muye v Metro Politan Properties Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 180 of 2024)
  • Re Piwa Clare and Baywaga Joan (Miscellaneous Application No. 53 of 2016)
  • Re Estate of the Late John Peter Otto (Miscellaneous Application No. 149 of 2023)
  • Richard Kigongo Kaaya and Others v Tom Kigonya Kaaya and Rev. Canon Eriya Luzinda (High Court Civil Suit No. 331 of 2017)
  • Hilda Wilson Namusoke and Others v Owalla's Home Investment Trust (EA) Ltd and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2017)
  • Three Ways Shipping Service Group Limited v MTN (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 584 of 2013)
  • Electro Max Uganda Ltd v Oryx Oil Uganda Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 25 of 2021)
  • Mbarara Municipal Council v Jetha Brothers Ltd (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2021)
  • Dima Domnic Poro v Inyani Godfrey and Apiku Martin (High Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2016)
  • Kania and Another v Attorney General and Others [2005] 1 EA 83
  • Commissioner Land Registration and Another v Emmanuel Lukwajju (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2016)
  • Wadia Construction Co. Ltd v Commissioner Land Registration (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 3 of 2012)
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd and Another v Quarry Services [1969] 1 EA 514
  • Uganda Development Bank v MS Kasirye, Byaruhanga and Company Advocates (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1994) [1995] UGSC 37
  • Posiyano Semakula v Susan Magala and Others (1979) HCB 89
  • John Kafeero Sentogo v Shell (U) Limited and Uganda Petroleum Company Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2003)
  • Mansukhlal Ramji Karia and Another v Attorney General and 2 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2002)
  • HM Attorney-General v Barker [2000] 1 FLR 759; [2000] EWHC 453 (Admin)
  • King's College Budo Staff Savings Scheme Limited v Zaverio Samula and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 26 of 2020)
  • Deox Tibeigana v Vijay Reddy (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2019)
  • Uganda Land Commission and Another v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2014)
  • Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands [1982] AC 529
  • Mugasa Grace Adyeeri v Commissioner Land Registration (Civil Appeal No. 710 of 2024) [2025] UGCA 240
  • Hezekiah Mukiibi and Another v Commissioner Land Registration and Another (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2024) [2025] UGSC 52

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Marwa Properties Ltd v Commissioner Land Registration and Others (Civil Appeal 86 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 38 (23 February 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.