Wakilii

Saku & Anor v Commissioner Land Registration & Anor (Misc. Cause No. 040 of 2014)

High Court · [2014] UGHCLD 112 · 2014 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking writs of certiorari and mandamus to quash Commissioner Land Registration's decision cancelling applicants' title
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed for failure to exhaust statutory right of appeal

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 judicial review is not available where an alternative remedy by way of appeal exists and has not been exhausted. The Commissioner's decision to cancel the applicants' title was made under Section 91(1) of the Land Act, which provides a right of appeal to the District Land Tribunal under Section 91(10). The applicants failed to pursue this statutory remedy before seeking judicial review and did not demonstrate why the appeal remedy would be prejudicial or inadequate. The application was dismissed.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed for failure to exhaust statutory right of appeal

Facts

The applicants held title to land comprised in Gomba Block 55 Plot 3 at Lwabitosi. The Commissioner Land Registration summoned them under Section 165 of the Registration of Titles Act on 25 November 2013. The applicants did not attend the hearing but sent a written communication. The Commissioner subsequently cancelled their title and communicated this decision on 15 May 2014. The applicants had previously lodged a notice of appeal through their former advocates but did not pursue it. Instead, they filed an application for judicial review seeking writs of certiorari and mandamus to quash the Commissioner's decision. The 1st respondent raised a preliminary objection that the applicants had used the wrong procedure and should have appealed under Section 91(10) of the Land Act.

Issues

  1. Whether judicial review is available to challenge the Commissioner Land Registration's decision when an alternative remedy by way of appeal exists under Section 91(10) of the Land Act.
  2. Whether the Commissioner's decision was made under Section 165 of the Registration of Titles Act or Section 91(1) of the Land Act.
  3. Whether the applicants were required to exhaust their right of appeal before seeking judicial review.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Availability of Alternative Remedies — Exhaustion of Appellate Remedies
Judicial review is not available where an alternative remedy by way of appeal exists and has not been exhausted, unless the applicant demonstrates that the alternative remedy would be inconvenient, less beneficial, less effective or totally ineffective.
Administrative Law — Powers of Commissioner Land Registration — Section 91 Land Act versus Section 165 Registration of Titles Act
Where the Commissioner Land Registration cancels a title in exercise of powers under Section 91(1) of the Land Act, the remedy against that decision lies under Section 91(10) of the Land Act, notwithstanding that the Commissioner may have used procedural powers under Section 165 of the Registration of Titles Act to summon parties or require documents.
Administrative Law — Commissioner Land Registration — Section 165 Registration of Titles Act as Procedural Provision
Section 165 of the Registration of Titles Act is a procedural provision that empowers the Commissioner to summon parties and require documents in the course of investigations, and does not itself confer substantive decision-making power or create a separate right of appeal.
Land & Property — Appeals from Commissioner Land Registration — Section 91(10) Land Act
Any party aggrieved by a decision of the Commissioner Land Registration under Section 91 of the Land Act may appeal to the District Land Tribunal within sixty days after the decision was communicated, and this statutory remedy must ordinarily be pursued before seeking judicial review.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Jurisdiction of Court — Discretion to Disregard Specific Remedies
The High Court's inherent jurisdiction to invoke discretionary writs under Section 38 of the Judicature Act does not permit it to disregard a clear statutory remedy unless the applicant demonstrates that no alternative remedy is available or that the available remedy is inadequate, and the court must exercise this discretion judiciously.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (7)

  • Uganda Crop Industries Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCCS No. 05 of 2009)
  • Re Mustapha Ramathan (CACA No. 29 of 1996)
  • Baku Raphael Obura & Anor v Attorney General (SCCA No. 41 of 2005)
  • National Union of Clerical, Commercial & Technical Employees v National Insurance Corporation (SCCA No. 17 of 1993)
  • Twine Amor v Tamusuza James (C/R 11 of 2009)
  • Deo Semakula v Bayogera Valentine Kayungo & Ors (HCCS No. 422 of 2013)
  • Micro Case Insurance Ltd v Uganda Insurance Commission (Misc. Application No. 31 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Saku & Anor v Commissioner Land Registration & Anor (Misc. Cause No. 040 of 2014) [2014] UGHCLD 112 (14 July 2014)
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.