Wakilii

Nakakande Tahiya Hussein and Others v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 87 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 95 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review challenging the Commissioner Land Registration's decision to cancel the applicants' certificate of title
Decision
Application for judicial review allowed; Commissioner's decision quashed; permanent injunction granted restraining further cancellation of the applicants' certificate of title

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 cancel the applicants' certificate of title was riddled with procedural impropriety. The Commissioner failed to serve the applicants with a copy of the formal complaint and did not provide them with a fair opportunity to respond, violating the mandatory requirements of Section 88(10) of the Land Act and the principles of natural justice. The court granted certiorari quashing the Amendment Order and issued a permanent injunction restraining further implementation of the cancellation decision.

Outcome

Application for judicial review allowed; Commissioner's decision quashed; permanent injunction granted restraining further cancellation of the applicants' certificate of title

Facts

The applicants purchased land comprised in Leasehold Register Volume 4461 Folio 23 Plot 7 at Kirinya Road, Jinja District from Tezikya Fatuma, the registered proprietor, in November 2023. Kakande Hussein took possession and began constructing a commercial building. In December 2023, he received threats to vacate. On 24 January 2024, a public hearing notice was published in the Daily Monitor. The applicants' lawyer attended the hearing on 15 February 2024 and requested a copy of the complaint, after which the proceedings were adjourned sine die. Without providing the complaint or concluding the hearing, the Commissioner Land Registration issued an Amendment Order on 23 April 2024 cancelling the applicants' registration on grounds that their predecessor Tezikya Fatuma was registered in error due to an existing caveat by Juma Waira lodged on 5 July 2023. The applicants discovered the cancellation only after conducting a search and brought this judicial review application.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is amenable for judicial review.
  2. Whether the Commissioner Land Registration acted illegally and ultra vires his powers in cancelling the applicants' certificate of title.
  3. Whether the Commissioner Land Registration violated the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness in the decision-making process.

Orders

  • A declaratory order that the decision of the respondent cancelling the applicants' entry on the certificate of title in respect of land comprised in LRV 4461 Folio 23 Plot 7 Land at Kirinya Road Jinja District was riddled with procedural impropriety.
  • An order of certiorari doth issue to quash the impugned decision of the respondent, as contained in the Respondent's Amendment Order of 23rd April 2024, in respect to Leasehold Register Volume 4461 Folio 23 Plot 7, land at Kirinya Road, Jinja District.
  • An order of prohibition doth issue against the implementation of the impugned decision of the Respondent as contained in the Notice of Cancellation of entries dated 23rd April 2024 under Reference LLRV 446/23.
  • An Order of Permanent Injunction restraining the Respondent from adjudicating upon and/or cancelling the Applicants' Certificate of Title to the suit land based on claims or allegations relied upon by the respondent, and/or registering any instrument adversely affecting the applicant's interest in relation thereof.
  • The applicant is awarded the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Amenability — Exercise of Public Functions by Commissioner Land Registration
A decision by the Commissioner Land Registration is amenable to judicial review where the Commissioner acts in exercise of public functions derived from an Act of Parliament and the matter involves public administration of land registration which is of interest to the public.
Natural Justice — Right to Be Heard — Mandatory Notice Requirements
Section 88(10) of the Land Act Cap 236 requires the Registrar of Titles to give not less than twenty-one days' notice to any party likely to be affected by a decision, provide an opportunity to be heard, and conduct the hearing in accordance with the rules of natural justice. These requirements are mandatory and couched in mandatory terms.
Natural Justice — Right to Know the Case — Service of Complaint
It is a fundamental aspect of due process and fair treatment that any person appearing before a public body should know the case or allegations against him or her. The Commissioner Land Registration must serve a copy of the formal complaint and all necessary documents to enable a party to answer meaningfully and effectively.
Procedural Impropriety — Consequences of Violation of Natural Justice
Where the principles of natural justice are violated in respect of any decision, it is immaterial whether the same decision would have been arrived at in the absence of the departure from the essential principles of justice. The decision must be declared to be no decision at all.
Land Registration — Powers of Commissioner — Cancellation Based on Fraud
The Commissioner Land Registration cannot inquire into allegations of fraud as this would be in excess of his jurisdiction and ultra vires his powers. The Commissioner's action is rightly limited to actions for errors or illegalities that do not require the rigors of a full trial where fraud would be established.
Land Registration — Caveats — Effect on Subsequent Dealings
Once a caveat is in place, no valid dealing or transaction in the affected land can occur unless and until the caveat is withdrawn, lapses, or is removed by Court order. Where a transaction occurs on land subject to a registered caveat, the entire dealing is deemed null and void as it is unlawful.
Judicial Review — Standard of Procedural Fairness — Administrative Proceedings Distinguished from Court Proceedings
Proceedings before the Commissioner Land Registration cannot be treated as court proceedings so as to require a fair hearing of the nature envisaged under Article 28 of the 1995 Constitution. However, all administrative bodies must act with procedural fairness and avoid procedural impropriety while taking decisions affecting the rights of citizens. The nature of the required procedural fairness will depend on the circumstances of each case.

Legislation cited (22)

Cases cited (25)

  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 353 of 2005)
  • Ssemakula Sulaiti v Commissioner Land Registration and Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 75 of 2009)
  • C.R. Patel v The Commissioner Land Registration and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 87 of 2009)
  • Mohammed Alibhai v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 217 of 2021)
  • Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council and Others [2008] 2 EA 300
  • Commissioner Land Registration and Another v Emmanuel Lukwailu (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2016)
  • Council of Civil Service Unions and Others v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374
  • Byrne v Kinematograph Renters Society Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 762
  • Sursipharm (U) Ltd v Uganda Investment Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 65 of 2021)
  • Arua Kubala Park Operators and Market Vendors' Cooperative Society Ltd v Arua Municipal Council (Miscellaneous Cause No. 003 of 2016)
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service [1985] AC 375
  • Akbarali v Brent London Borough Council and Others [1983] 2 AC 309
  • Anismic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147
  • Hilda Wilson Namusoke and Others v Owalla Home Investment Trust Limited and Commissioner Land Registration (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2017)
  • Wadia Construction (U) Ltd v The Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 63 of 2021)
  • R v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Venables [1998] AC 407
  • R v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531
  • Kushaba Ronald v Commissioner Land Registration and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2023)
  • Justine Kateera v Commissioner of Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 081 of 2023)
  • Kamurasi Charles v Accord Properties Limited and Another (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1996)
  • Kanda v Government of the Federation of Malaya [1962] AC 320
  • Interbrew v The Competition Commission [2001] EWHC Admin 367
  • Re D (Minors) (Adoption Reports: Confidentiality) [1996] AC 537
  • Ojansole Patricia and Others v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 303 of 2013)
  • General Medical Council v Spackman [1943] AC 627

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakakande Tahiya Hussein and Others v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 87 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCD 95 (2 July 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.