Wakilii

Ssebunya v The Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 27 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 409 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Human rights enforcement application under Articles 45, 50(1) and 50(2) of the Constitution seeking declarations that government's land repossession acts violated applicant's fundamental rights
Decision
Application dismissed for failure to prove that the Respondent violated or threatened the Applicant's fundamental rights

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 an applicant alleging violation of fundamental rights by government must prove such violation on the balance of probabilities. Newspaper articles are inadmissible hearsay and cannot establish an eviction order. The Commissioner Land Registration is a distinct legal entity from the Attorney General under Section 182 of the Registration of Titles Act. Grievances arising from the Commissioner's cancellation of a certificate of title under Land Act section 91 should be raised against the Commissioner, not the Attorney General. Application dismissed for lack of evidence.

Outcome

Application dismissed for failure to prove that the Respondent violated or threatened the Applicant's fundamental rights

Facts

The Applicant claimed his forefathers occupied approximately 170 acres at Kamuganja village since the 1920s. In 1936, Sango Bay Estates Limited obtained a 99-year lease over 146,000 hectares. The Applicant obtained a certificate of title in 2003 for 68.512 hectares. In 2012, the Applicant received a sensitization letter regarding boundary opening of Sango Bay land. In October 2021, the Applicant alleged the Resident District Commissioner ordered him to vacate within one month or face forceful eviction following a Cabinet resolution to repossess the Sango Bay land. The Applicant relied on a newspaper article as evidence. By letter dated 11 March 2013, the Commissioner Land Registration notified the Applicant of intent to cancel his certificate of title, issued on 12 April 2012, because an earlier title already existed over the same land. The Respondent disputed issuing any eviction order and stated that verification established the Applicant's land was not part of Sango Bay land.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant's human rights were infringed or threatened by the Respondent's agents.
  2. Whether there was proof of an order by the Respondent or the Respondent's agents directing the Applicant to vacate the suit land.
  3. Whether the cancellation of the Applicant's certificate of title by the Commissioner Land Registration was properly attributable to the Respondent.
  4. What remedies are available to the Applicant in the circumstances.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Admissibility — Hearsay — Newspaper Articles
Newspaper articles are inadmissible as evidence for being hearsay where none of the parties quoted in the article are called as witnesses to verify the information contained therein.
Human Rights — Enforcement — Burden of Proof — Standard of Proof
In an application for enforcement of fundamental rights under the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019, the applicant bears the burden of proving the alleged violation or threat on the balance of probabilities. Mere assertion without evidence is insufficient.
Land & Property — Land Registration — Commissioner Land Registration — Distinct Legal Entity
The Commissioner Land Registration is a body distinct from the Attorney General, with capacity to sue and be sued under Section 182 of the Registration of Titles Act. The Attorney General cannot be held liable for actions of the Commissioner Land Registration in exercise of functions under the Registration of Titles Act or Land Act.
Land & Property — Land Registration — Cancellation of Certificate of Title — Commissioner's Powers
Under Section 91 of the Land Act, the Registrar has power to cancel a certificate of title issued in error without referring the matter to a court, where it is established that at the time of issuance there already existed a title for the same parcel of land. The Commissioner is well within her power to correct the error immediately upon realizing it.
Constitutional Law — Fundamental Rights Enforcement — Parties — Proper Defendant
Where an applicant's grievance arises from the exercise of statutory powers by a distinct legal entity such as the Commissioner Land Registration, the applicant must sue that entity or join it as a party. The Attorney General is not the proper defendant for actions taken by distinct statutory bodies in exercise of their independent statutory functions.

Legislation cited (18)

  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended) Article 26(1)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended) Article 26(2)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended) Article 237(1)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended) Article 28
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended) Article 42
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended) Article 44(c)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended) Article 21(1)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended) Article 22
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended) Article 40(2)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended) Article 45
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended) Article 50
  • Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 s.3(1)
  • Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 s.4
  • Judicature (Fundamental and other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2019 Rule 7
  • Judicature (Fundamental and other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2019 Rule 8
  • Land Act s.91
  • Registration of Titles Act s.176(e)
  • Registration of Titles Act s.182

Cases cited (13)

  • Attorney General v Salvatore Abuki (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Eng. Pascal R Gakyaro v Civil Aviation Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 60 of 2006)
  • Caroline Turyatemba and 4 Others v The Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 15 of 2006)
  • Cooperative Ranching Society and 31 Others v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 103 of 2010)
  • Patel v Commissioner Land Registration and 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 87 of 2009)
  • MK Financiers Ltd v Shah and Co. Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 900 of 2014)
  • Interfreight Forward (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank [1990-1994] EA 117 (SCU)
  • Patrick Obong v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 224 of 2021)
  • Kamo Enterprises Limited v Krystalline Salt Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2018)
  • Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefunza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2007)
  • Kamba Saleh v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 38 of 2012)
  • Edward Kabuyo Sentongo v Bank of Baroda and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 166 of 2002)
  • Re. Kivulu (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 04 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssebunya v The Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 27 of 2021) [2023] UGHC 409 (7 August 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.