Wakilii

Nankuluzze & 2 Others v National Forestry Authority (Miscellaneous Application 1918 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 10 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment in HCCS No. 2917 of 2016 arising from Civil Suit No. 771 of 2015
Decision
Judgment in HCSS 2917 of 2016 set aside and reviewed; permanent injunction granted protecting applicants' possession

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 granted the application for review of HCCS No. 2917 of 2016 on three grounds: discovery of new evidence (the Commissioner of Surveys and Mapping's report confirming the suit land is not part of Kajjansi Forest Reserve), manifest error (the judgment in HCCS 2917/2016 contradicted the earlier decision in HCCS 885/2017 on the same subject matter, violating Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act), and denial of fair hearing (the applicants' property rights were affected without them being heard). The court declared that the suit land does not form part of Kajjansi Forest Reserve.

Outcome

Judgment in HCSS 2917 of 2016 set aside and reviewed; permanent injunction granted protecting applicants' possession

Facts

The applicants held certificates of title for various plots of land on Busiro Block 405-406 and Block G537. In HCCS No. 2917 of 2016, the court ruled that the suit land formed part of Kajjansi Forest Reserve, which meant the applicants' titles were liable for cancellation. The applicants were not parties to that suit. Earlier, in HCCS No. 885 of 2017, the court had declared that Busiro Block 405-406 Plot 1344 was not part of Kajjansi Forest Reserve, based on the Report of the Commissioner of Surveys and Mapping. That report also confirmed that only Busiro Block G537 Plots 18, 19, 31, 78, and 79 constitute the forest reserve. In HCCS 885/2017, the National Forestry Authority admitted to being bound by the Commissioner's guidance. The applicants brought the present application for review on grounds of newly discovered evidence, manifest error, and denial of fair hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the instant application raises grounds for review of Civil Suit No. 2917 of 2016

Orders

  • Judgment in HCSS 2917 of 2016 is hereby set aside and reviewed.
  • The Suit-Land (Busiro Block 405-406 plots 1689, 3119, 1050, 1070, 1333, 1339, 1340, 1342, 1346, 1521, 1351, 1352 and Busiro Block G537 Plots 287, 290, 296, 317, 319, 502 and 503) does not form part of Kajjansi Forest Reserve.
  • A permanent injunction is granted against the respondent from trespassing, evicting and interfering with the quiet enjoyment and possession of the suit property by the Applicants.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Discovery of New Evidence — Binding Nature of Commissioner of Surveys and Mapping's Report
A report from the Commissioner of Surveys and Mapping resolving the boundaries and extent of a forest reserve constitutes new and important evidence that warrants a review of a judgment under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules where the party affected did not have access to this evidence during the original trial.
Administrative Law — Forest Reserves — Determination of Boundaries — Finality of Commissioner's Decision
Where any dispute arises as to whether any area is included in a forest reserve, the decision of the Commissioner of Surveys and Mapping is final and a certificate under his or her hand recording the evidence shall be admissible in evidence in any court of law. A party who admits being bound by the Commissioner's guidance cannot subsequently take a contrary position.
Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Section 7 Civil Procedure Act — Same Subject Matter Between Same Parties
No court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties and has been heard and finally decided by that court. Where a High Court has determined that suit land does not form part of a forest reserve, the same court is barred from subsequently deciding that the same land forms part of the reserve, and such a subsequent decision constitutes a manifest error warranting review.
Civil Procedure — Review — Sufficient Cause — Right to Fair Hearing — Persons Affected but Not Parties
Where a judgment affects the property rights of persons who were not parties to the suit and were not heard, such persons have sufficient cause under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act to apply for review of that judgment on grounds that their constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution was violated.
Land & Property — Certificates of Title — Validity — Registration of Titles Act Section 50
No certificate of title issued under the Registration of Titles Act shall be impeached or defeasible by reason or on account of any informality. Where certificates of title have not been challenged as fraudulently procured, they are valid titles that confer enforceable rights on the holders.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (7)

  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (SCCA No. 6 of 2004)
  • F.X Mubuuke v Uganda Electricity Board (HCMA No. 98 of 2005)
  • Edward Acero Goil and Another v National Forestry Authority and 2 Others (HCSS No. 135 of 2005)
  • Nevia Company Ltd v Biersdorf AG (CACA No. 355 of 2019)
  • Cassam v Sachania [1982] KLR
  • National Forestry Authority v Kiwanuka Sam (SCCA No. 17 of 2010)
  • Attorney General v Henely Property Developers Ltd (SCCA No. 5 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nankuluzze_&_2_Others_v_National_Forestry_Authority_(Miscellaneous_Application_1918_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_10_(16_January_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.