Wakilii

Tashobya Rebecca v Commissioner of Land Registration and Others (Miscellaneous Cause 172 of 2023)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 61 · 2026 Judicial Review Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review of administrative decision cancelling certificate of title
Decision
Certificate of title reinstated following successful judicial review

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 held that the Commissioner of Land Registration's decision to cancel the applicant's certificate of title was tainted with procedural impropriety and illegality. The Commissioner failed to conduct the agreed joint survey in the presence of both parties, failed to provide the survey report to the applicant before making the decision, and failed to communicate the decision in writing as required by section 88(4) and (11) of the Land Act. The court issued orders of certiorari quashing the cancellation decision and mandamus reinstating the applicant's certificate of title.

Outcome

Certificate of title reinstated following successful judicial review

Facts

In 2001, the applicant's mother purchased a kibanja and took physical possession. In 2013, she surveyed and divided the land into plots 824 and 825. The applicant applied to the Wakiso District Land Board for conversion of customary to freehold and became the registered proprietor of Plot 825 in 2014. In 2014, UNRA informed the applicant that her land was affected by the Kampala-Jinja express highway project and she was entitled to compensation. In 2019, UNRA officials informed the applicant that her title overlapped with others. The 2nd and 3rd respondents, who held title to Plot 182 issued in 2006, lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Land Registration in 2022 alleging the applicant's title was issued in error. The applicant was summoned to a hearing on 5 December 2022, where both parties agreed to a joint survey. Despite continuous adjournments, the Commissioner cancelled the applicant's certificate of title on 8 May 2023 based on a survey report that was not made available to the applicant. The applicant only discovered the cancellation on 28 May 2023.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents' affidavits in reply are properly before the Honorable Court?
  2. Whether the instant application is properly before this Honorable Court?
  3. Whether the 1st respondent's decision to cancel the applicant's certificate of title in respect of land comprised in WAK381 Folio 18 Kyadondo Block 242 Plot 825 land at Bukasa is illegal, incurably invalid, and void?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The prerogative order of certiorari is hereby issued against the 1st respondent quashing the said decision to cancel the certificate of title of land comprised in FRV WAK381 FOLIO 18 Kyadondo Block 242 Plot 825 land at Bukasa.
  • An order of mandamus is issued to reinstate the applicant's certificate of title for land comprised in FRV WAK381 FOLIO 18 Kyadondo Block 242 Plot 825 land at Bukasa.
  • The applicant is granted the costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Procedural Fairness — Right to Fair Hearing
Where an administrative decision-maker agrees to conduct a joint survey in the presence of both parties but subsequently relies on a survey conducted by a government surveyor without the parties' participation, the decision is tainted with procedural impropriety and unfairness.
Judicial Review — Natural Justice — Disclosure of Evidence
Procedural fairness requires that persons directly affected by a proposed administrative decision be given an opportunity or adequate notice of what may form or likely influence the final decision. Failure to provide a survey report to an affected party before making a decision based on that report amounts to unfairness and violates the rules of natural justice.
Judicial Review — Illegality — Failure to Communicate Decision
Section 88(4) and (11) of the Land Act impose a mandatory requirement on the Registrar of Titles to communicate his or her decision in writing to the parties. Failure to comply with this statutory requirement constitutes an illegality that renders the decision invalid.
Judicial Review — Alternative Remedies — Exhaustion Requirement
Where the right of appeal to district land tribunals under section 88(12) of the Land Act is not available because such tribunals do not exist, and where the applicant seeks to challenge the decision-making process on grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety rather than the merits of the decision, judicial review is the appropriate remedy and the applicant is not required to exhaust alternative remedies.
Judicial Review — Affidavits in Reply — Time for Filing
Where there is no timeline specified by law for filing an affidavit in reply to a judicial review application, the respondent should file and serve the affidavit in reply within a reasonable time to enable the applicant to rejoin before the hearing. An affidavit in reply filed one month before the hearing date is filed within a reasonable time.
Land Registration — Cancellation of Certificate of Title — Procedural Requirements
Under section 88(3) of the Land Act, the Registrar of Titles must conduct a hearing and give the interested party an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the rules of natural justice before cancelling a certificate of title issued in error. The Registrar must also communicate the decision in writing to the parties with reasons under section 88(4).

Legislation cited (32)

Cases cited (13)

  • Turyamureeba Julius and 19 Others v Nakaseke District Local Government (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0010 of 2024)
  • Dr. Lam Lagoro James v Muni University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 07 of 2016)
  • Mukumbiri Ronald v Commissioner Land Registration and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 006 of 2023)
  • Leads Insurance Ltd v Insurance Regulatory Authority and Another (Civil Appeal No. 237 of 2015)
  • Kizza George and Others v The Commissioner Land Registration and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 06 of 2023)
  • Deo Semakula v Bayogera Valentine and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 422 of 2013)
  • Mugasa Grace Adyeri v The Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 257 of 2023)
  • Byaruhanga John v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Application No. 235 of 2024)
  • Pastoli v Kabale District Government Council and Others [2008] 2 EA 300
  • Twinomuhangi v Kabale District and Others [2006] HCB 130
  • Registered Trustees of Church of Uganda v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 153 of 2022)
  • Mweru v UEDCL (Civil Suit No. 270 of 2011)
  • Byaruhanga John Patrick v Commissioner for Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 235 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tashobya Rebecca v Commissioner of Land Registration and Others (Miscellaneous Cause 172 of 2023) [2026] UGHCCD 61 (18 March 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.