Wakilii

Sekitoleko and 11 other v Commissioner Land Registration and Another (Miscellaneous Cause 18 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 168 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking enlargement of time to appeal cancellation of land titles by the Commissioner Land Registration and restoration of certificates of title
Decision
Application dismissed. Cancellation of certificates of title by Commissioner Land Registration upheld. Costs awarded to second respondent.

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 dismissed the application. The court held it lacked direct appellate jurisdiction over the Commissioner Land Registration under s.91(10) of the Land Act. Treating the matter as judicial review, time was enlarged. The court found that while there was procedural impropriety in service of notice, the applicants did not come to court with clean hands, having acquired freehold titles when they were neither lessees nor customary tenants eligible for conversion, and the second respondent held a prior leasehold interest entitling them to first option for renewal. The Commissioner Land Registration was not in contempt of court.

Outcome

Application dismissed. Cancellation of certificates of title by Commissioner Land Registration upheld. Costs awarded to second respondent.

Facts

Twelve applicants held freehold certificates of title over land comprised in Buruli Block 228 Plots 28-34, issued on 20 February 2018 by conversion. The second respondent Nile Fibre Board Ltd had held a leasehold registered in 2012 over Block 228 Plot 6 from which the applicants' plots were carved, under a lease dating back to 1975 which expired in 2016. The second respondent requested the Commissioner Land Registration to cancel the applicants' titles. The Nakasongola District Land Board withdrew the Board minute that allocated the titles. On 4 October 2021, the Commissioner cancelled the applicants' titles on grounds they were issued illegally and in error. The applicants applied to challenge this decision after related Court of Appeal proceedings between the parties were withdrawn. Civil Suit No. 301 of 2018 filed by Nile Fibre Board seeking cancellation of the same titles had been dismissed for want of prosecution in 2020.

Issues

  1. Whether the court has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Commissioner Land Registration.
  2. Whether time should be enlarged for the applicants to challenge the decision of the Commissioner Land Registration.
  3. Whether the Commissioner Land Registration acted with procedural impropriety in cancelling the applicants' freehold certificates of title.
  4. Whether the applicants were lawfully entitled to the freehold certificates of title over land previously held under leasehold by the second respondent.
  5. Whether the Commissioner Land Registration was in contempt of court in cancelling the titles.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Where persons to be affected by orders cancelling their titles are served by registered post, the receipt on posting the notice shall be preserved and produced in court in the event an affected person challenges the decision.
  • The Commissioner Land Registration shall ensure that persons to be affected by adverse orders should be properly served with notice in compliance with fair hearing principles in Article 28(1) of the Constitution, Section 91(8) of the Land Act Cap. 227, and Section 37 of the Land (Amendment) Act 2004.
  • Applicants to pay the second respondent Nile Fibre Board Ltd costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Appellate Jurisdiction — High Court — Appeals from Commissioner Land Registration
The High Court does not have direct appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Registrar of Titles under Section 91(10) of the Land Act Cap. 227. Appeals from decisions of the Registrar of Titles under Section 91 go to magistrates' courts by virtue of Practice Direction 1 of 2006 transferring jurisdiction of land tribunals to magistrates' courts.
Enlargement of Time — Good Cause — Dilatory Conduct of Previous Lawyers
The dilatory conduct of an applicant's previous lawyers who failed to take timely legal steps should not be visited upon the applicant. Fair hearing principles under Article 28 of the Constitution confer a right to be heard notwithstanding lateness. The court may exercise discretion to enlarge time where an applicant acted promptly upon becoming aware through new counsel of the need to seek judicial review.
Conversion of Tenure — Freehold — Requirements under Land Regulations 2004
Under the Land Regulations 2004, a holder of customary tenure can apply for conversion to freehold under Rule 10, and a lessee on public land can apply for conversion to freehold under Rule 15. A person who holds neither customary tenure nor a leasehold interest has no basis for obtaining a freehold title by conversion. Freehold titles issued to persons without qualifying tenure are issued illegally and in error.
Leasehold — Expired Lease — First Option to Renew — Right of Occupant
Where a leaseholder has been in occupation of land under a registered lease and the lease expires, the land is not available for re-assignment to third parties without first giving the occupying leaseholder notice and the opportunity to apply for a new lease. A leaseholder in occupation has a right analogous to that of a bona fide occupant to be given the first option to apply for a new lease over the land, applying the principle in Kampala District Land Board v National Housing Construction Corporation Ltd.
Natural Justice — Procedural Impropriety — Service of Notice — Proof of Service
Section 91(8) of the Land Act requires the Registrar of Titles to give 21 days' notice to persons affected by a decision, give them an opportunity to be heard, conduct proceedings in accordance with the rules of natural justice, and give reasons for any decision. Section 202 of the Registration of Titles Act requires proof of service through a memorandum certifying that notice was served. The registrar has a duty within fair hearing principles to ensure that affected persons have been duly served before proceeding to make adverse orders against them.
Clean Hands Doctrine — Effect on Relief — Correct Decision Despite Procedural Flaw
Where an applicant for judicial review has not come to court with clean hands, having obtained rights improperly, and where the administrative decision-maker arrived at a substantively correct decision despite procedural impropriety, the court may decline to quash the decision. The court will balance the procedural flaw against the substantive justice of the outcome and the conduct of the parties.
Contempt of Court — Commissioner Land Registration — Administrative Functions — Temporary Injunction
A temporary injunction ordering parties to maintain the status quo of suit land does not restrain the Commissioner Land Registration from carrying out administrative functions as custodian of land titles, including correcting errors or cancelling titles that were issued illegally or in error. A temporary injunction is automatically vacated when the suit in which it was granted is dismissed, and there is no order capable of being held in contempt thereafter.

Legislation cited (23)

Cases cited (8)

  • Okullu & three others v Lacen (Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2017)
  • Kintu Samuel and another v Registrar of Companies (HCMC No. 58 of 2021)
  • Chief Constable of North Wales v Evans [1982] 3 All ER 141
  • Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council and others [2008] 2 EA 300
  • Kampala District Land Board and Chemical Distributors Ltd v National Housing Construction Corporation Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2004)
  • Omukama of Bunyoro Kitara and another v Attorney General and others (HCCS No. 0015 of 2014)
  • Sebudde Joseph v Inspector General of Government (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0032 of 2010)
  • Hon. Setende Sebalu v The Secretary General of the East African Community (Reference No. 8 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sekitoleko and 11 other v Commissioner Land Registration and Another (Miscellaneous Cause 18 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 168 (30 November 2023)
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.