Nakazzi v Commissioner Land Registration (Misc Cause No. 82 of 2022) [2022] UGHCLD 238 (14 December 2022)

Key Facts

Issues

• The applicant challenged the respondent's reliance on a police report alleging forgery by Kasalina Nkinzi, arguing the report's findings were improperly used to cancel the title without proper legal authority or evidence.
• The applicant argued the respondent violated procedural requirements by cancelling the title without providing a hearing to the deceased's family, particularly as the deceased had already passed away and the cancellation occurred during a statutory transaction ban due to the pandemic.
• The court assessed whether the respondent's decision to cancel the certificate of title for Kyadondo Block 265 Plot 339 land at Bunamwaya was ultra vires under the Land Act and Registration of Titles Act, as the respondent lacked jurisdiction to act on grounds of fraud or forgery without a formal complaint.
• The court considered issuing a mandamus order to compel the respondent to restore the late Joseph Ssemanda's name to the land register, given the respondent's irregular and ultra vires cancellation of the title.

Holdings

• The court found that the respondent's decision to cancel the certificate of title was ultra vires and illegal, as the respondent acted beyond their powers and violated procedural fairness by not allowing the deceased's family to be heard. The cancellation occurred while the deceased had already passed away and during a government-issued transaction ban.
• A mandamus order was granted compelling the respondent to reinstate the late Joseph Semanda's name on the certificate of title, as the cancellation was improperly executed without due process.
• The court determined the respondent had no authority to cancel the title on grounds of fraud or forgery, citing precedents that confirm the commissioner of land registration lacks such powers. The decision was made without proper jurisdiction.
• A prohibition order was issued to restrain the respondent from implementing the impugned findings of the police report regarding the forged signature, to prevent further prejudice to the applicant.
• A certiorari order was issued to quash the respondent's cancellation decision, which was found to be based on an error of law and made outside the respondent's jurisdiction.

Remedies

• A prerogative order of prohibition is issued to restrain the respondent from implementing the findings of the police report that allegedly confirmed Kasalina Nkinzi did not sign the transfer instrument for the land in Kyadondo Block 265 plot 339.
• A prerogative order of certiorari is issued to quash and set aside the respondent's decision to cancel the certificate of title for Kyadondo Block 265 plot 339 land at Bunamwaya. A permanent injunction is granted to restrain the respondent and its agents from implementing the orders related to the cancellation.
• A permanent injunction is issued to restrain the respondent and its agents from implementing the orders of the respondent insofar as they affect the applicant's husband's title to the land at Bunamwaya.
• An order of mandamus is directed to the respondent to reinstate the late Joseph Semanda's name on the certificate of title to the land in Kyadondo Block 265 plot 339 at Bunamwaya, as the cancellation was deemed ultra vires.

Legal Principles

• The court applied judicial review principles to quash the respondent's decision to cancel the certificate of title, finding it ultra vires. The decision was invalidated for exceeding the respondent's statutory authority and failing to adhere to procedural requirements under the Land Act and Registration of Titles Act.
• The court emphasized the violation of natural justice principles, as the respondent failed to provide the deceased's family an opportunity to be heard before cancelling the title. This procedural irregularity rendered the decision void.

Precedent Name

• Hilda Wilson Namusoke & 3 Ors v Owalla's Home Investment Trust (E.A) Limited Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2017
• Pastori vs. Kabale District Local Government Council and Others [2008] 2 EA 300
• Thugitho Festo vs. Nebbi Municipal Council (Arua) HCMA No. 15 of 2017
• Kampala University-v-National Council for Higher Education MC No. 053 OF 2014
• John Jet Tumwebaze v. Makerere University Council and others (Civil Application No. 78 of 2005)
• R v Lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page [1993] AC 682
• Israel Kabwa versus Martin Banoba S.C.C.A. No.52 of 1995

Cited Statute

• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009
• Judicature (Amendment) Rules 2002
• Judicature Act Cap. 13
• Registration of Titles Act Sections 176 & 177
• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 71
• Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019
• Land Act Section 91

Judge Name

Passage Text

• In the case of Hilda Wilson Namusoke & 3 Ors v Owalla's Home Investment Trust (E.A) Limited Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2017, the Supreme Court held that the commissioner of land registration does not have powers to cancel a certificate of title on the ground of fraud.
• A prerogative order of certiorari is hereby issued against the respondent, quashing and setting aside the decision of the respondent cancelling the certificate of title for land comprised in Kyadondo Block 265 plot 339 land at Bunamwaya. A permanent injunction is hereby issued restraining the respondent and its agents from implementing the orders of the respondent in so far as they affect the applicant's husband's title.
• The applicant has proved that the respondent exercised powers that he did not possess at the time of reaching the decision to cancel the applicant's certificate of title. The respondent's actions were, therefore, illegal, improper and irregular. But also secondly, the decision was taken before according the family of the late Semanda an opportunity to be heard. As such therefore, it was made contrary to the rules of natural justice.