Wakilii

Nakamatte Mary Flavia and Others v Commissioner for Land Registration and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 144 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 181 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review challenging the Commissioner for Land Registration's decision to cancel the applicants' certificates of title
Decision
Cancellation decision quashed; applicants' names restored to the register; respondents restrained from future interference except in accordance with law and after proper notice and hearing

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's decision to cancel the applicants' certificates of title was tainted by procedural impropriety and illegality. The applicants were not afforded proper notice and a fair hearing as required by Section 88 of the Land Act and Article 42 of the Constitution. The court granted certiorari quashing the cancellation decision and mandamus directing restoration of the applicants' names on the register, while preserving the Commissioner's power to initiate fresh proceedings in compliance with the law.

Outcome

Cancellation decision quashed; applicants' names restored to the register; respondents restrained from future interference except in accordance with law and after proper notice and hearing

Facts

The applicants were registered proprietors of land comprised in Mawokota Block 260 Plots 87, 100, 101 and 102. The Commissioner for Land Registration received a complaint from persons claiming to be beneficiaries of the estate of the late Charles Kamwanga Busulwa, alleging that the applicants' titles were unlawfully created through subdivisions made without the knowledge and consent of the registered proprietor. The Commissioner cancelled or amended the applicants' certificates of title. The applicants contended they were not served with proper notice under Section 88 of the Land Act, were not afforded a fair hearing, and that the 3rd applicant's counsel only became aware of the hearing by chance while at the lands office on other business. The applicants challenged the cancellation decision through judicial review, seeking certiorari and mandamus.

Issues

  1. Whether the preliminary objections raised by the Respondents should be upheld.
  2. Whether this application is a proper case for judicial review and whether the impugned decision is amenable to judicial review.
  3. Whether the decision to cancel or amend the Applicants' certificates of title was tainted by illegality, procedural impropriety or irrationality.
  4. Whether the Applicants are entitled to the remedies of certiorari, mandamus, permanent injunction and costs.

Orders

  • The preliminary objections based on non-exhaustion of alternative remedies, limitation and non-amenability to judicial review are overruled.
  • An order of certiorari issues calling up and quashing the decision or amendment order of the 1st Respondent cancelling or amending the Applicants' certificates of title for land comprised in Mawokota Block 260 Plots 87, 100, 101 and 102.
  • An order of mandamus issues directing the 1st Respondent to restore the Applicants' names on the respective certificates of title and register entries for Mawokota Block 260 Plot 87 in respect of the 1st Applicant, Mawokota Block 260 Plot 100 in respect of the 2nd Applicant, and Mawokota Block 260 Plots 101 and 102 in respect of the 3rd Applicant.
  • The Respondents are restrained from cancelling, altering or otherwise interfering with the Applicants' registration or proprietorship over the said plots except in accordance with the law, after proper notice to all persons likely to be affected and after affording a fair hearing.
  • The costs of this application are awarded to the Applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies — Rule 7A Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules
The existence of a statutory remedy does not automatically bar judicial review where the complaint is directed at the legality of the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision, particularly where a public authority is alleged to have acted without jurisdiction, in breach of natural justice, or in violation of constitutional rights under Article 42.
Judicial Review — High Court Jurisdiction — Constitutional Basis
The High Court's unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 139(1) of the Constitution includes judicial review of administrative action, and this jurisdiction cannot be ousted by ordinary legislation providing for alternative statutory remedies.
Natural Justice — Right to Fair Hearing — Notice Requirements
Where a public authority exercises statutory power to cancel a certificate of title under Section 88 of the Land Act, the affected person must be given proper notice of the complaint, the evidence relied upon, the nature of the proposed action, and a real opportunity to respond and present their case, not merely formal or constructive notice.
Land Registration — Commissioner's Powers — Section 88 Land Act — Procedural Safeguards
The Commissioner for Land Registration's power under Section 88 of the Land Act to correct errors and illegalities in the register must be exercised in compliance with mandatory procedural requirements including fair notice and hearing under Article 42 of the Constitution, particularly where the cancellation depends upon complex questions of fraud, beneficial ownership or estate disputes.
Judicial Review — Grounds — Procedural Impropriety and Illegality
An administrative decision to cancel certificates of title is tainted by procedural impropriety and illegality where the decision-maker fails to afford affected persons adequate notice and a fair hearing, even where the substantive merits of ownership remain undetermined.
Judicial Review — Remedies — Certiorari and Mandamus — Scope
Where an administrative decision is quashed by certiorari for procedural impropriety, mandamus may issue to restore the status quo ante while preserving the decision-maker's power to initiate fresh proceedings in strict compliance with the law and with proper notice to all persons likely to be affected.

Legislation cited (26)

Cases cited (10)

  • Muhammed Magezi v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 172 of 2017)
  • Machacha Livingstone and Another v Law Development Centre (Miscellaneous Cause No. 93 of 2009)
  • Uganda Projects Implementation and Management Centre v Uganda Revenue Authority (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2009)
  • Commissioner General, Uganda Revenue Authority v Meera Investments Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2007)
  • DOTT Services Ltd v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 125 of 2009)
  • Balondemu David v Law Development Centre (Miscellaneous Cause No. 61 of 2016)
  • Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council and Others [2008] 2 EA 300
  • Macfoy v United Africa Co. Ltd [1961] 3 All ER 1169
  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council and Others (Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2005)
  • Semwo Construction Company v Rukungiri District Local Government (Miscellaneous Cause No. 30 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakamatte Mary Flavia and Others v Commissioner for Land Registration and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 144 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 181 (8 June 2026)
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.