Wakilii

Mary Zawedde Mulira and Others v Commissioner for Land Registration and Others (Misc Cause No. 17 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 62 · 2025 Judicial Review Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Judicial review application challenging the Commissioner for Land Registration's decision to issue a memorandum of registration vesting disputed land in the third respondent
Decision
Application granted; memorandum of registration quashed; applicants reinstated as registered proprietors

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 the Commissioner for Land Registration acted illegally and with procedural impropriety when issuing a memorandum of registration on 9 January 2025 vesting disputed land in the third respondent. The Commissioner had no power to re-hear concluded matters on the same title after a 2024 public hearing that re-vested the land in the applicants. Section 151 of the Registration of Titles Act applies only to undisputed land where the title is in the vendor's name, not to disputed land. The failure to hear the applicants before vesting the title in their opponents violated the right to fair hearing under Articles 28 and 44 of the Constitution.

Outcome

Application granted; memorandum of registration quashed; applicants reinstated as registered proprietors

Facts

The applicants were registered proprietors of land comprised in Leasehold Register Volume 838 Folio 14, having inherited it from their late parents who were registered in 1975. In 2015, illegal entries changed the proprietorship to the third respondent. The applicants petitioned the Commissioner for Land Registration, who conducted a public hearing in 2024 and rectified the register, reinstating the applicants on the title. On 9 January 2025, the Commissioner issued a memorandum of registration vesting the land in the third respondent, who claimed to have purchased it from Tom Kigoonya Kaaya in 2014. The Commissioner acted on an application for a vesting order filed by the third respondent on the same day, without hearing the applicants.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is amenable to judicial review.
  2. Whether the decision making process for the impugned memorandum of registration dated 9 January 2025 issued by the Commissioner for Land Registration was illegal.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Declaration issued that the decision of the Commissioner for Land Registration in a memorandum of registration dated 9 January 2025 vesting the land in the name of the third respondent was ultra vires, illegal, null and void.
  • Order of certiorari issued quashing the memorandum of registration issued by the Commissioner for Land Registration on 9 January 2025.
  • Order of mandamus issued compelling the respondents to reinstate the administrators of the estates of Cranimer Kaaya and Ignatius Kangave Musaazi as the registered proprietors of the land comprised in Leasehold Register Volume 838 Folio 14; Bulemezi Block 928 plot 2 at Bugulumizi, Nakaseke District.
  • Order of prohibition issued prohibiting the respondents from tampering with the registration of the administrators as the registered proprietors.
  • Injunction issued restraining the respondents from tampering with the registration of the administrators as the registered proprietors.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Amenability to Judicial Review — Public Body — Commissioner for Land Registration
An application for judicial review is amenable where the body under challenge is a public body whose activities can be controlled by judicial review and the subject matter involves claims based on public law principles. The Commissioner for Land Registration is a public office established under the Registration of Titles Act and decisions of that office are amenable to judicial review.
Registration of Titles — Vesting Orders — Section 151 of the Registration of Titles Act — Scope of Application
Section 151 of the Registration of Titles Act applies only to land without disputes where the title is in the names of the vendor but the vendor has only failed to sign transfer forms. It does not apply to land where there are disputes and the title is not in the names of the vendor.
Illegality — Functus Officio — Registrar of Titles — Power to Review Own Decisions
Having entertained a public hearing on a title and issued orders re-instating parties on the title, it is illegal for the Registrar of Titles to open the dispute afresh and entertain a hearing again on the same title. There is no law that allows the Registrar of Titles to review their own decisions.
Procedural Impropriety — Right to Fair Hearing — Natural Justice
Procedural impropriety occurs when a decision-making authority fails to act fairly in the process of its decision making, including failure to observe basic rules of natural justice or failure to act with procedural fairness toward the person who will be affected by the decision. It is a grave procedural flaw for the Registrar of Titles not to hear parties on an application filed on a title which was in their names when the Registrar knew they had interest in the same.
Right to Fair Hearing — Non-Derogable Right — Articles 28 and 44 of the Constitution
The right to fair hearing is a fundamental non-derogable right under Articles 28 and 44 of the Constitution and cannot be denied in a clear case where a party's interest is at stake.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (8)

  • Council of Civil Service Unions and Others v Minister for Civil Service (1985) AC 374
  • Mutumba Ismael v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 145 of 2019)
  • Master Links Uganda Ltd v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 167 of 2022)
  • Arua Kubala Park Operators and Market Vendors Corp. Vs Arua Municipal Council
  • Re Ivan Mutaka [1980] HCB 27
  • ACP Bakaleke Siraji v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 212 of 2018)
  • Yustus Tinkasimire and 18 Others v Attorney General and Dr. Malinga Stephen (Miscellaneous Cause No. 35 of 2012)
  • Owor Arthur and 8 Others v Gulu University (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 18 of 2007)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mary Zawedde Mulira and Others v Commissioner for Land Registration and Others (Misc Cause No. 17 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 62 (11 April 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.