Mohamed Khalil Dagher v The Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause 17 of 2023)
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 Land Registration's decision to vacate caveats lodged by the applicant without serving notice or affording a hearing constituted procedural impropriety. The court found no court order directing vacation of the caveats and ruled the Commissioner's actions illegal, irregular, and improper, granting certiorari, mandamus, and a permanent injunction.
Outcome
Application granted; caveats ordered restored; permanent injunction issued restraining future vacation without court order or due process
Facts
The applicant, a shareholder and director in two companies holding leasehold interests in multiple land plots in Mukono District, lodged caveats on 28 company land titles on 28 September 2022. On 9 March 2023, the Commissioner Land Registration vacated all caveats without notice to or hearing from the applicant. The applicant discovered this on 19 April 2023 during a search. Inquiries at the Respondent's offices yielded no satisfactory explanation. The Respondent claimed to have acted on a court order from Miscellaneous Application No. 1768 of 2021, which granted Al Shafi Investment Group LLC permission to bid for and purchase shares in the applicant's companies. The court order did not, however, direct vacation of caveats or transfer of land titles. The applicant exhausted non-judicial remedies before filing for judicial review.
Issues
- Whether the application raises sufficient grounds for judicial review.
- Whether the Commissioner Land Registration acted with procedural impropriety in vacating the applicant's caveats without notice or hearing.
Orders
- Application allowed.
- An order of certiorari quashing the Respondent's decision to vacate caveats lodged by the Applicant on the various lands listed in the Applicant's supporting affidavit.
- An order of mandamus compelling the Respondent to restore the Applicant's caveats as they were before vacation.
- A permanent injunction order restraining the Respondent or any other party from vacating the Applicant's caveats without a valid court order or due process of the law.
- Costs of the application to the Applicant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 42
- Judicature Act Cap. 13 s.33
- Judicature Act Cap. 13 s.36
- Judicature Act Cap. 13 s.37
- Civil Procedure Act Cap. 71 s.98
- Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 No. 11 Rule 3(1)(a)
- Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 No. 11 Rule 6(1)
- Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019 No. 32 Rule 7A
- Registration of Titles Act s.140(1)
- Land Act s.91
Cases cited (6)
- ACP Bakaleke Siraji v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 212 of 2018)
- Unzi Godfrey Licho v Moyo District Local Government and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0097 of 2016)
- Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 375
- Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1K.B. 223
- Salim Alibhai and Others v Uganda Revenue Authority (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 123 of 2020)
- Al Shafi Investment Group LLC v Ahmed Darwish Dagher Almarar (Miscellaneous Application No. 1768 of 2021)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.