Sekabira v Commissioner Land Registration (Misc Cause 44 of 2022)
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
Held that the Commissioner Land Registration's failure to create and issue substitute and duplicate certificates of title for land comprised in Busiro Block 526 Plot 51, despite the applicant's lawful entitlement as beneficiary and completion of required survey, constituted unlawful exercise of discretion and abuse of statutory power under Registration of Titles Act s.170. Mandamus issued compelling creation of certificates. General damages awarded for breach of statutory duty.
Outcome
Application granted with mandamus compelling creation of substitute and duplicate certificates of title; general damages and costs awarded to applicant
Facts
The applicant was a grandson and surviving beneficiary of the estate of the late Nasanayiri Kakumeme who died on 26 August 1966. The deceased owned land comprised in Busiro Block 526 Plot 51 at Bumpenje, registered as a caveat on main title MRV 193 Folio 5 and recorded on a blue page. Letters of administration were granted to the Administrator General in Administration Cause No. 221 of 1991, but the Administrator General could not transfer the land to the applicant because of lack of a certificate of title. The applicant was in possession and occupation of the land. When the applicant's lawyers requested a search report, Ministry officials advised that the blue page for the suit land was missing. Despite multiple written requests for creation of a substitute blue page file and issuance of substitute and duplicate certificates of title, the Commissioner Land Registration failed to act. A survey report was obtained confirming the plot measured 1.217 hectares (3.00 acres), tallying with the area on title. The Respondent neither filed a response nor appeared at the hearing.
Issues
- Whether the Respondent's omission to create and issue a certificate of title to the suit land comprised in Block 526 Plot 51 raises grounds for judicial review?
- Whether the Applicant is entitled to the remedies sought?
Orders
- Declaration that the Respondent's omission and/or failure to create a substitute and duplicate certificates of title on the suit land was unlawful.
- Order of Mandamus issued compelling the Respondent to create and maintain a substitute title and a duplicate certificate of title for land comprised in Busiro Block 526 Plot 51.
- General damages of UGX 5,000,000 awarded to the Applicant.
- Costs of the application awarded to the Applicant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Constitution of Uganda Article 26
- Constitution of Uganda Article 28
- Constitution of Uganda Article 42
- Constitution of Uganda Article 44
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.27
- Judicature Act Cap 13 s.33
- Judicature Act Cap 13 s.36
- Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.170
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 20(1)(a)
Cases cited (7)
- Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service (1985) AC 375
- Dr. Lam-Lagoro James v Muni University (HCM No. 7 of 2016)
- Smart Protus Magara and 13 Others v Financial Intelligence Authority (HCMC No. 215 of 2018)
- Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No. 3) [2003] 2 AC 28
- X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633
- Robert Cuossens v Attorney General (SCCA No. 8 of 1999)
- Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.