Mugasa Adyeeri v The Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause 257 of 2023)
Observed later treatment
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.
Appeal & case history
Follow this matter from the decision below through each appellate court.
See the court’s words
“An Order of certiorari is hereby issued quashing the decision of the”
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
Application for judicial review dismissed. The court held that the application was amenable for judicial review where land tribunals were non-operational and no clear alternative remedy existed. However, the Commissioner Land Registration acted lawfully in cancelling an entry made without valid letters of administration, communicated reasons for the decision, and committed no illegality, procedural impropriety or irrationality.
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed; Commissioner's decision to cancel the entry upheld
Facts
The Applicant purchased land comprised in Bulemezi Block 56 Plot 263 from the late Muhamudu Mayombwe. After the Applicant vacated a caveat lodged by Sebyatika Badiru, Sebyatika Badiru and Nakibirango Edith lodged a complaint with the Commissioner Land Registration alleging that Mayombwe had fraudulently registered himself on the title. The Commissioner conducted a public hearing and issued a letter informing the Applicant of the decision to cancel Mayombwe's entry on grounds that he had been registered as proprietor without valid letters of administration of the estate of the late Nampiima Lazia, from whom the land originally belonged. The Applicant sought judicial review of this decision.
Issues
- Whether the application is amenable for judicial review?
- Whether the Respondent's actions were illegal, procedurally improper and/or irrational?
- Whether the Applicant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
Orders
- Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (11)
- Constitution of Uganda Articles 28, 42, 139
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Judicature Act Cap 13 ss.33, 36
- Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules S.I No.11 of 2019 Rules 2, 3, 3A, 5, 6, 7, 7A, 8
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rules 1, 2, 3
- Land Act Cap 227 s.91
- Land Act s.91(1)
- Land Act s.91(5)(d)
- Land Act s.91(8)(d)
- Land Act s.91(10)
- Land (Amendment) Act 2004 s.91(2b)
Cases cited (8)
- Leads Insurance Ltd v Insurance Regulatory Authority & Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 237 of 2015)
- Sarah Nakku & Others v The Commissioner Land Registration & Another (High Court Civil Appeal No. 064 of 2010)
- Attorney General v Yustus Tinkasimmire & Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 208 of 2013)
- Kuluo Joseph Andrew & Others v Attorney General & Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 106 of 2010)
- ACP Bakaleke Siraji v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 212 of 2018)
- Hilda Wilson Namusoke v Owalla's Home Investment Ltd & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2017)
- Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service (1985) AC 375
- Dr. Lam-Lagoro James v Muni University (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 007 of 2016)
Cases citing this judgment (1)
How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.