Wakilii

Mulisa v The Commissioner Land Registration & Others (Miscellaneous Cause 281 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 404 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking certiorari, prohibition, injunction, and mandamus against the Commissioner Land Registration's decision to cancel a certificate of title
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 an application for judicial review challenging the Commissioner Land Registration's decision to cancel a certificate of title. The court held that the applicant was afforded procedurally sufficient opportunity to be heard during the public hearing under section 91 of the Land Act, and that the right to just and fair treatment under Article 42 of the Constitution does not require the strict procedural safeguards of a court hearing under Article 28. The court found no illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety in the Commissioner's decision to correct the register by reversing an erroneous amalgamation of plots.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed

Facts

The applicant, administrator of the estate of the late Kadoma John, challenged the Commissioner Land Registration's decision to cancel the certificate of title for Bulemezi Block 917 Plot 1. The Commissioner had received a complaint from the administrators of the estate of the late Ssebombo Robert alleging that Kadoma fraudulently transferred the land. The Commissioner summoned both parties to a public hearing on 26 October 2021. The applicant attended with his lawyer. After evaluating the evidence, the Commissioner issued a decision on 16 March 2022 correcting the register by reversing an amalgamation of plots 1, 21, and 9. The Commissioner found that Kadoma had acquired Plot 21 measuring 89 hectares, not Plot 1 measuring 259.1 hectares, and that the amalgamation had been done in error. The applicant claimed he was not served with a copy of the complaint, was not allowed to call witnesses, and only discovered the decision through a random search at the land registry on 14 June 2022.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is amenable for judicial review.
  2. Whether the application raises grounds for judicial review.
  3. Whether the applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Distinction Between Article 28 and Article 42 Rights — Fair Hearing vs Just and Fair Treatment
The right to just and fair treatment in administrative decisions under Article 42 of the Constitution is distinct from the right to a fair hearing under Article 28. Article 28 applies only before an independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law. Public hearings or investigations conducted under section 91 of the Land Act by the Registrar of Titles cannot be treated as court proceedings requiring the strict procedural safeguards of a fair hearing under Article 28.
Judicial Review — Grounds — Procedural Impropriety — Degree of Procedural Fairness Required
Courts are wary of over-judicialising administrative processes. Administrative decision-makers are not courts of law and should not be required to adopt the strict procedures of a court or tribunal. The test is whether the procedure adopted achieves the degree of fairness appropriate to the task.
Land Registration — Registrar's Powers — Section 91 of the Land Act — Correction of Register
Under section 91 of the Land Act, the Registrar of Titles has power to correct the register where a certificate of title is issued in error, contains a misdescription, contains an illegal endorsement, or is illegally or wrongfully obtained. The Registrar may take such steps as are necessary, including cancellation of certificates of title and issue of fresh certificates, without referring the matter to a court or district land tribunal.
Judicial Review — Grounds — Illegality, Irrationality, Procedural Impropriety
To succeed in an application for judicial review, the applicant must show that the decision or act complained of is tainted with illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Judicial review is premised on allegations that a public body acted without powers, exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to comply with applicable rules of natural justice, proceeded on a mistaken view of the law, or arrived at a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority properly directing itself could have reached it.

Legislation cited (26)

Cases cited (7)

  • Energo Project v Brigadier Kasirye Gwanga and Another (HCMA No. 558 of 2009)
  • Hilda Wilson Namusoke and 3 Others v Owella's Home Investment Trust EA Limited (SCCA No. 15 of 2017)
  • Logose Florence Judith v Law Development Centre (HCMC No. 190 of 2021)
  • Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council and Others [2008] 2 EA 300
  • Arua Kubala Park Operators and Market Vendors' Cooperative Society Limited v Arua Municipal Council (MC No. 3 of 2016)
  • Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
  • Kenya Revenue Authority v Menginya Salim Murgani (Civil Appeal No. 108 of 2009)

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

↓ Download PDF

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

Mulisa v The Commissioner Land Registration & Others (Miscellaneous Cause 281 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 404 (23 August 2023)
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.