Visible Cooperative Savings and Credit Society v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2025)
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 an application for extension of time to file judicial review of a land title cancellation. Though the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay, the court held that judicial review was not the appropriate remedy. The issues raised—including whether the applicant was a bonafide purchaser and whether fraud occurred in the original title creation—required evaluation of evidence through a civil suit, not judicial review.
Outcome
Application dismissed; applicant advised to file civil suit against current registered proprietor and respondent
Facts
The applicant purchased land comprised in Kyadondo Block 94 Plot 53 from Yudaya Nsereko after conducting due diligence including a land registry search confirming the land was free of encumbrances. The chain of title traced back 47 years to Alexandria Mary Nakamanya. In September 2023, the applicant discovered the land no longer appeared on the land registry system. Upon inquiry, the applicant learned the land had been cancelled under Instrument No. WKYO06260085 without prior notice to them. The cancellation followed a complaint from the administrator of the estate of the late Nalinya Damalie Nakinzi requesting cancellation of all certificates created out of former plot 17 for having been illegally created. A notice of intention to effect changes was issued on 17 September 2020 and a public hearing was conducted on 12 October 2020, which the applicant did not attend. The applicant only learned of the cancellation after the three-month judicial review time limit had lapsed.
Issues
- Whether the Applicant has demonstrated justifiable cause for extension of time within which to file an application for judicial review.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- No orders as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (11)
- Constitution of Uganda Article 28(1)
- Constitution of Uganda Article 42
- Judicature Act s.14(1)
- Judicature Act s.14(2)(c)
- Judicature Act s.33
- Judicature Act s.36(7)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 1
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 3
- Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 rule 5(1)
- Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 rule 3A
Cases cited (1)
- Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (1997-2001) UCL 149
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.