Sekabira v The Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous 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 exercise statutory discretion under Registration of Titles Act s.170 to create and issue a certificate of title for land comprised in Block 526 Plot 51 after survey confirmed the plot measurements and the applicant established entitlement as beneficiary was an unlawful exercise of discretion constituting illegality. Order of mandamus issued compelling creation of substitute title and duplicate certificate. General damages of UGX 5,000,000 awarded for breach of statutory duty.
Outcome
Application succeeded on ground of illegality; mandamus issued compelling Respondent to create substitute title and duplicate certificate of title for the suit land; general damages and costs awarded to Applicant
Facts
The applicant was a grandson and surviving beneficiary of the late Nasanayiri Kakumeme who owned land comprised in Block 526 Plot 51 at Bumpenje, registered as a caveat on the main title and on blue page at the time of his death in 1966. Letters of administration were granted to the Administrator General in 1991 but transfer into the applicant's name could not be completed because the blue page file was missing and no certificate of title existed. The applicant was in possession and occupation of the land. A survey confirmed the plot measured 3.00 acres as per the title. The applicant's lawyers repeatedly requested the Commissioner Land Registration to create a substitute blue page file and issue substitute and duplicate certificates of title but the requests were ignored. The Acting Commissioner had noted on correspondence that survey was required because the late owner's blue page was missing, but even after survey was conducted no certificate was issued.
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
- Application granted.
- Declaration granted 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 Block 526 Plot 51 at Bumpenje.
- General damages of UGX 5,000,000 (Five Million Shillings) awarded to the Applicant.
- Costs of the application awarded to the Applicant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
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. 007 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.