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

Key Facts

Issues

• The applicant challenged the admissibility of the respondents' affidavits in reply, arguing they were filed out of time. The court found the affidavits were filed within a reasonable period (20th March 2025, one month before the hearing) and rejected the objection.
• The court granted: (1) certiorari to quash the cancellation; (2) mandamus to reinstate the certificate of title; and (3) costs in favor of the applicant. These remedies were authorized under section 40(1)(a), (c), (d) of the Judicature Act.
• The court determined the application is properly before it, citing the absence of functional district land tribunals and the non-mandatory nature of section 88(12) appeal provisions. The applicant's claim of procedural impropriety justified judicial review over alternative remedies.
• The court found the 1st respondent violated procedural fairness by: (1) failing to conduct the agreed joint survey with both parties; (2) basing the cancellation on a report not disclosed to the applicant; and (3) not adhering to section 88(4) requirements to communicate the decision in writing with reasons.

Holdings

• The court granted the applicant's reliefs: (1) Quashed the cancellation via certiorari, (2) Ordered reinstatement via mandamus, (3) Granted a permanent injunction against further interference, and (4) Awarded costs of the application.
• The court found the 1st respondent's decision to cancel the applicant's certificate of title was illegal and incurably invalid due to procedural impropriety (failure to conduct joint survey, no fair hearing) and illegality (failure to communicate the decision and reasons as required by section 88(4) and (11) of the Land Act). The decision was quashed.
• The court determined the application is properly before the High Court for judicial review, as the applicant had no viable appeal remedy under the Land Act. The district land tribunals did not exist, and the appeal to magistrates or High Court was not accessible for challenging procedural irregularities rather than merits.
• The court overruled the applicant's objection that the respondents' affidavits in reply were filed out of time, finding that they were filed within a reasonable period (20th March 2025) before the hearing on 23rd April 2025, allowing the applicant to file rejoinders. The affidavits were not struck off.

Remedies

• The applicant is granted the costs of the application.
• A certiorari order has been issued to quash the 1st respondent's decision to cancel the applicant's certificate of title for land in Kyadondo Block 242 Plot 825 at Bukasa.
• A mandamus order is issued compelling the 1st respondent to reinstate and restore the applicant's certificate of title for land in Kyadondo Block 242 Plot 825 at Bukasa.

Legal Principles

• The court upheld judicial review as a valid remedy, finding the Commissioner Land Registration's decision to cancel the certificate of title illegal, incurably invalid, and void due to exceeding statutory powers (ultra vires) and procedural flaws. This included issuing the decision without proper notice or adherence to natural justice principles.
• The court emphasized that the failure to accord the applicant a fair hearing, including non-disclosure of the Commissioner Surveys' report and lack of opportunity to challenge it, constituted procedural impropriety under the rules of natural justice. This led to the invalidation of the title cancellation decision.

Precedent Name

• Mukumbiri Ronald v Commissioner Land Registration
• Byaruhanga John v Commissioner Land Registration
• Mugasa Grace Adyeri v Commissioner Land Registration
• Twinomuhangi v Kabale District
• Pastoli v Kabale District Government Council
• Registered Trustees of Church of Uganda v Commissioner Land Registration
• Practice Direction No.1 of 2006
• Leads Insurance Ltd v Insurance Regulatory Authority
• Deo Semakula v Bayogera Valentine
• Mweru v UEDCL

Cited Statute

• Land Act Cap 236
• Practice Direction No. 1 of 2006
• Judicature Act Cap 16
• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules No. 11 of 2009
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda

Judge Name

Passage Text

• "The 1st respondent had a duty to avail the parties with the documents that were sought from Uganda Land Commission and invite them to make any comment or submission or representation about them. Procedural fairness requires that persons directly affected by the proposed decision and proceedings be given an opportunity or adequate notice of what may form or likely influence the final decision... The same information clearly formed the basis of the final decision made by the 1st respondent."
• "The applicant alleges having not been served with the decision, the respondent denies this... However, they do not attach proof of service of the decision as the decision they attach does not show that the applicant received the same. This means there was an illegality on the part of the 1st respondent when he failed to adhere to the mandatory requirements in section 88(4) & (11) of the Land Act to communicate his decision to the applicant."
• "...the wording of section 88(12) is not mandatory in nature, but also provides a remedy that is not readily accessible to the applicant... an appeal would not offer him a remedy, as there would be nothing on his side to evaluate. The illegality complained of here is the failure to accord the applicant a right to be heard."