Wakilii

Namulondo & 3 Others V Serwanga Salongo & 2 Others (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 001 OF 2019)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 213 · 2019 Application Granted — Certiorari Issued AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Judicial review application challenging administrative decision of Commissioner for Land Registration to rectify land register
Decision
Application granted. Administrative decision quashed by certiorari and declaratory relief issued. Status quo ante restored.

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

Held that the Commissioner for Land Registration acted ultra vires and irrationally in rectifying the land register at the instance of parties who had previously lost ownership disputes determined by courts between 1984 and 1993. The administrative rectification power under Land Act s.91 was not intended to be exercised in a manner that defeats final court judgments. The order quashing decisions made 30 years prior was made with ulterior motive and exceeded statutory purpose. Certiorari issued to quash the rectification decision and restore the status quo ante.

Outcome

Application granted. Administrative decision quashed by certiorari and declaratory relief issued. Status quo ante restored.

Facts

Applicants claimed beneficial interest in land comprised in Masaka Buddu Block 367 Plot 3 based on judgments in their favour dating from 1984, 1993 and 2017. In January 2018, the 1st and 2nd respondents (as successors of Yowana Yakuze who had lost prior litigation) complained to the Commissioner for Land Registration that the applicants and their predecessors were erroneously and fraudulently registered. The Commissioner conducted a hearing on 17 September 2018 and issued an amendment order on 27 November 2018 rectifying the register by cancelling the applicants' entries and reinstating earlier entries in favour of respondents' predecessor. Applicants raised preliminary objections based on limitation, res judicata and locus standi, and requested referral to High Court. The Commissioner refused the referral and proceeded to rectify. Applicants sought judicial review.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a valid and competent application on record in respect of the 1st, 3rd and 4th applicants
  2. Whether in arriving at his decision, the 3rd respondent accorded the applicants a fair hearing
  3. Whether the decision of the 3rd respondent was irrational, ultra vires and was made in contravention of the law
  4. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • A declaratory order issued that the actions and decision of the 3rd respondent in proceedings held at Kampala Land Office were irrational, ultra vires and irregularly made in contravention of the law.
  • An Order of Certiorari issued quashing the decision of 3rd respondent contained in the amendment order dated 27th November 2018.
  • No damages awarded.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicants, save that the 4th applicant's counsel is not awarded any costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Grounds for Review — Ultra Vires — Exercise of Power with Ulterior Motive
Where a public authority exercises statutory power ostensibly within its jurisdiction but with an ulterior motive to achieve purposes not contemplated when the power was conferred, the exercise is ultra vires and subject to judicial review.
Commissioner for Land Registration — Rectification Powers — Limits of Administrative Authority
The rectification powers of the Commissioner for Land Registration under Land Act s.91 are not intended to be exercised in a manner that reverses or defeats final judgments of courts determining ownership rights, even where 30 years have elapsed since those judgments.
Fair Hearing — Meaning and Scope — Declining to Refer Legal Issues
An administrative decision-maker's refusal to refer legal issues to the High Court for determination does not of itself constitute denial of a fair hearing where the applicant was afforded an opportunity to be heard and to advance submissions, though the applicant remains at liberty to challenge the resulting decision on grounds of legality.
Irrationality — Rationality Review — Purpose of Statutory Power
A decision is irrational and inconsistent with the rule of law where it is not rationally related to the purpose for which the statutory power was conferred and is not objectively capable of furthering that purpose.
Affidavit Evidence — Multiple Applicants — Supporting Affidavit
Where multiple applicants bring a judicial review application on the same grounds and relying on the same facts, the failure of some applicants to file separate affidavits and their reliance instead on the affidavit of a co-applicant is a mere irregularity that does not render the application incompetent.
Certiorari — Effect of Order — Restoration of Status Quo Ante
The effect of an order of certiorari is to restore the status quo ante, thereby reinstating the situation that existed before the decision quashed was made.
Damages in Judicial Review — Requirement to Establish Recognised Tort
The fact that an administrative act is ultra vires does not of itself entitle an individual to damages. The individual must establish that the unlawful action also constitutes a recognisable tort such as misfeasance in public office or involves a breach of contract.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (13)

  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 353 of 2005)
  • DOTT Services Ltd v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 125 of 2009)
  • Balondemu David v The Law Development Centre (Miscellaneous Cause No. 61 of 2016)
  • Commissioner of Land v Kunste Hotel Ltd [1995-1998] 1 EA (CAK)
  • Nteyafa Kaddu Mukasa & Another v Zion Construction (HCCS No. 901 of 2015)
  • Ready Agro Suppliers Limited v Uganda Development Bank (HCT-CC No. 039 of 2005)
  • Raj Narain v Indira Nehru Gandhi (1972)3 SCC 850
  • Harkness v Bell's Asbestos Ltd [1966] All ER 843
  • Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism v Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Limited 2004 (7) BCLR 687 (CC); 2004 (4) SA 490 (CC)
  • Johannesburg Stock Exchange v Witwatersrand Nigel Ltd 1988 (3) SA 132
  • Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA In Re:Ex Parte Application of President of the RSA 2000 (3) BCLR 241(CC)
  • R vs Aston University Senate ex p Roffey [1969] 2 QB 558
  • R vs Secretary of State for Health ex p Furneaux [1994] 2 All ER 652

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.

Namulondo & 3 Others V Serwanga Salongo & 2 Others (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 001 OF 2019) [2019] UGHCCD 213 (1 November 2019)
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.