Tindibyama Construction & General Supplies Company Limited v Attorney General & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 4 of 2023)

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.

Holding

Held that the application for judicial review was dismissed. The court found that the suit land was unregistered public land as determined by the Inspectorate of Government. The 2nd Respondent lawfully investigated the matter and its directive to have the land surveyed and registered in the name of Kanungu District Local Government was proper. The Applicant's claim that the land was private property formerly owned by the late Zakariya Rwanga was not supported by sufficient evidence. The court found no merit in the application.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed; suit land confirmed as unregistered public land to be registered in the name of Kanungu District Local Government

Facts

The Applicant, Tindibyama Construction & General Supplies Company Limited, entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Mushorero Community to use land at Mushorero Village, Bujengwe Parish, Kinkiizi West County, Kanungu District to plant tea. The Applicant claimed that the suit land was formerly registered private property owned by the late Zakariya Rwanga, who bequeathed it to the Mushorero Community in his will. The 2nd Respondent, the Inspectorate of Government, investigated allegations of land grabbing at the suit property following complaints. In its report dated 7 August 2023, the 2nd Respondent found that the suit land was unregistered public land and directed the 3rd Respondent, Kanungu District Local Government, to have the land surveyed and registered in its name and to take possession of the tea plantation. The Applicant brought this judicial review application seeking orders of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to quash the findings and directives. The Respondents opposed the application, contending that the land was public land, the investigation was lawful, and that the application sought to determine private ownership rights rather than challenge administrative action.

Issues

1. Whether the 1st and 2nd Respondents' investigation concerning land at Mushorero Village was illegal, ultra vires and procedurally improper.
2. Whether the 2nd Respondent's findings that the suit land was unregistered public land were illegal, ultra vires and procedurally improper.
3. Whether the directive to survey and register the suit land in the name of the 3rd Respondent was illegal, ultra vires and procedurally improper.
4. Whether the application for judicial review disclosed grounds for the grant of prerogative orders.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Judicature Act s.33
• Judicature Act s.36
• Judicature Act s.37
• Judicature Act s.38
• Judicature (Amendment) Act, 2002 s.38

Cases cited (4)

• Dr. James Rwanyarare v Attorney General & Uganda Law Society (Miscellaneous Cause No. 268 of 2017)
• John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 353 of 2005)
• Dott Services Ltd v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 125 of 2009)
• Balondemu David v The Law Development Centre (Miscellaneous Cause No. 61 of 2016)

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