Vamee Industries Limited v Commissioner Land Registration and Another (Civil Appeal 345 of 2022)

Observed later treatment

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

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's challenge to the High Court's refusal to entertain its judicial review application against the cancellation of its certificate of title. The Court held that judicial review is ordinarily a remedy of last resort and will be refused where a suitable alternative remedy exists. Because the appellant had suitable statutory remedies under sections 176, 178 and 183 of the Registration of Titles Act to recover its land or damages, judicial review was not the appropriate avenue. Judicial review is concerned with the lawfulness of the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision or private property rights. Having resolved grounds 1 and 2 against the appellant, it was unnecessary to consider the remaining grounds.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the High Court's dismissal of the judicial review application upheld

Facts

The appellant was registered in July 2013 as proprietor of leasehold land at Nantabulirwa-Namanve in Mukono District, having obtained a lease from the Uganda Land Commission. In 2021 the first respondent, the Commissioner Land Registration, cancelled the appellant's certificate of title. According to the respondents, the Commissioner acted under threat of arrest for contempt in execution of High Court orders that had decreed the suit land to the administrators of the Estate of the late Kabaka Daudi Chwa II and required cancellation of the appellant's title and processing of titles for those administrators. The appellant brought a judicial review application in the High Court at Mukono, contending the cancellation was illegal and effected without a fair hearing. The trial judge found judicial review inappropriate, holding the appellant should have filed an ordinary suit, and dismissed the application with no order as to costs. The appellant appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the appellant's application in the High Court was suitable for judicial review.
2. If so, whether the application satisfied the grounds for judicial review.
3. What are the most appropriate remedies in the case.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (10)

• Registration of Titles Act Cap. 230 s.176
• Registration of Titles Act Cap. 230 s.178
• Registration of Titles Act Cap. 230 s.183
• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.7A
• Land Act Cap. 227 s.91
• Civil Procedure Act s.48
• Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.28(1)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.44(c)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.30(1)(a)

Cases cited (18)

• Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans [1982] 3 All ER 141
• Leads Insurance Limited v Insurance Regulatory Authority (Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2019)
• Pastori v Kabale District Local Government Council Unions and others [2008] EA 300
• Julius Okwi v Moses Kirunda (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2021)
• SINBA(K) Ltd & Others v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2014)
• Professor Ssempebwa and Another v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 5 of 2019)
• Makula International v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] HCB 11
• Macfoy v United Africa Co. Ltd [1961] 1 All ER 116
• Attorney General v Yustus Tinkasimiire and 12 others (Civil Appeal No. 208 of 2013)
• Arua Kubala Park Operators and Market Vendors' Cooperative Society Ltd v Arua Municipal Council (Miscellaneous Cause No. 03 of 2016)
• Chuck v Cremer (1 Coop Temp Cott 247)
• Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] 2 All ER 567
• Housing Finance Bank Ltd v Edward Musisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
• Commissioner of Land v Kunste Hotel Ltd [1995-98] EA 1
• R (Glencore Energy UK Ltd) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2017] EWCA Civ 1716
• Housing Finance Company of Uganda Ltd v The Commissioner General and Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 722 of 2005)
• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Campbell v Pollock [1927] AC 732

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Inter Africa Investments Limited v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause 53 of 2021)

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