Wakilii

Salim Itawji Haiderali Alibhai and Alykhan Karmali v Commissioner Land Registration [2026] UGHCLD 215

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review by notice of motion seeking declaration, prohibition and injunction against the Commissioner Land Registration
Decision
Judicial review application dismissed as moot; no order as to costs

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 court dismissed an application for judicial review seeking to restrain the Commissioner Land Registration from conducting a public hearing over Kyadondo Block 257 Plot 832. Because the relief sought was tied to a hearing fixed for 22 January 2025, and the Respondent's unchallenged affidavit deposed that the hearing never took place, the notice had expired by effluxion of time. Where facts are specifically deposed to and no affidavit in rejoinder is filed, those facts are deemed admitted. Courts do not determine matters for academic purposes, and an order of prohibition cannot restrain an event whose designated date has already passed because such an order would be incapable of enforcement. Application moot and dismissed with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Judicial review application dismissed as moot; no order as to costs

Facts

The Applicants sued as executors of the estate of the late Amirali Karmali, who died in 2018. The deceased had purchased several plots at Munyonyo and in 2005 obtained their amalgamation into Kyadondo Block 257 Plot 832, over which he granted a 99-year lease to the Aga Khan Foundation. Beneficiaries of other estates lodged a complaint with the Commissioner Land Registration alleging erroneous amalgamation and transfer of the land into the deceased's names and seeking cancellation of the certificate of title. The Office of Titles registered the complaint, assigned it a cause number and issued a "Notice of Intention to Effect Changes in the Register" dated 13 December 2024, requiring the Applicants to appear for examination on 22 January 2025. The Applicants claimed they were not served the notice required under the Land Act, that related ownership disputes were pending in HCCS No. 354 of 2018 and HCCS No. 276 of 2019, and that the intended hearing was ultra vires and mala fide. The Respondent deposed that the Office of Titles acted intra vires and that the public hearing scheduled for 22 January 2025 never occurred. The Applicants filed no affidavit in rejoinder.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was properly before the court for judicial review, in particular whether it had been rendered moot by the passing of the date fixed for the impugned public hearing.
  2. Whether the Respondent acted with procedural irregularity and impropriety in issuing the notice of intention to effect changes in the register affecting the Applicants' certificate of title.
  3. Whether the Applicants were entitled to the remedies claimed.

Orders

  • Application dismissed as moot and overtaken by events.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Mootness — Relief Tied to a Past Calendar Date
An application for judicial review whose relief is directed at blocking a specific event fixed for a specific date becomes moot once that date passes without the event occurring, since the impugned notice expires by effluxion of time and no live dispute remains.
Judicial Review — Remedies — Prohibition Cannot Restrain a Past Event
An order of prohibition will not issue to restrain an event whose designated date has already passed, because such an order would have no practical effect and would be incapable of enforcement.
Evidence — Affidavits — Failure to File Affidavit in Rejoinder — Facts Deemed Admitted
Where facts are specifically deposed to in an affidavit and the opposing party files no reply or affidavit in rejoinder challenging them, those facts are deemed to have been admitted as true and accurate.
Civil Procedure — Academic Proceedings — Court Orders Must Have Practical Effect
Courts do not determine disputes or issue orders for academic purposes; where the issue in dispute has been removed or no longer exists, the proceedings must be dismissed.
Administrative Law — Land Registration — Notice of Intention to Effect Changes in the Register
The Office of Titles may receive and register a complaint alleging erroneous amalgamation or transfer of land, assign it a cause number and summon affected persons to a public hearing, such summoning being consistent with the rules of natural justice.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (4)

  • Katuntu v MTN Uganda Ltd and Others (Civil Suit No. 248 of 2012)
  • Maganda v NRM (Miscellaneous Cause No. 154 of 2010)
  • Kutesa and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 46 of 2011)
  • Uganda Telecommunications Ltd v Zain Uganda Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Salim Itawji Haiderali Alibhai and Alykhan Karmali v Commissioner Land Registration [2026] UGHCLD 215 (26 May 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.