Once a lease is registered, Uganda Land Commission’s role ends. High Court at Kampala Quashes ULC's Decision to Rescind Lease and Deny Consent to Transfer.

Waboga David
6 days ago
6 min read

FACTS

The applicant, Kajumbula Nadiope Rose, a senior citizen and former medical researcher, had resided on Plot 64, Nakiwogo Road, Entebbe, for over 50 years as a sitting tenant. On 16th January 2024, she applied to the Uganda Land Commission (ULC) for a 49-year lease over the property, which was unencumbered and owned by the ULC.

Following a site inspection confirming her occupancy and the land's status, the ULC approved the lease on 20th-21st March 2024 (Minute 40/2024 (a) (16)). The applicant paid all requisite fees, signed the lease agreement, and obtained a certificate of title (LRV WBU6434 Folio 19) on 11th July 2024. She enjoyed quiet possession for a year without complaints.In 2025, facing health challenges requiring expensive treatment, the applicant sought to sell her lease interest.

Per the lease terms, she applied for the ULC's consent to transfer. This prompted a second site inspection on 12th May 2025 by ULC commissioners and a technical team, who interviewed her and inspected the property to prepare a report. No findings were communicated to her.On 22nd September 2025, the applicant received a letter from the ULC referencing its meeting of 3rd-5th September 2025 (Minute 40/2025 (r) (57)), which:

Rejected her consent to transfer due to an alleged dispute with the Uganda Virus Research Institute (UVRI).
Rescinded the original lease grant from March 2024.
Halted all transactions and activities on the land.

The applicant was not informed of any dispute prior, nor invited to respond or attend meetings. She discovered an Attorney General's opinion advising against cancellation, deeming it unlawful, yet the ULC proceeded.

The applicant claimed the decisions caused her anxiety, health deterioration, and reputational harm amid media reports alleging irregularities (though no presidential directive existed). The ULC did not respond to the application despite service, leading the court to proceed ex parte.

LEGAL ISSUES

Whether the application is amenable to judicial review.
Whether ULC’s rejection of the consent to transfer was tainted with illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.
Whether ULC’s decision to rescind an already-registered lease was illegal, irrational, and procedurally improper.
Whether the Applicant is entitled to the remedies sought.

SUBMISSIONS (Applicant)

The applicant, through counsel, filed submissions emphasizing the ULC's violations of administrative law principles. Key arguments included:

Amenability to Judicial Review:
The ULC is a public body, the matter involves public law (land administration), the applicant has sufficient interest as the registered proprietor, the decisions are final, and the application was filed promptly (1st October 2025, shortly after communication on 22nd September 2025). Reference was made to Rule 7A of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2019.
Procedural Impropriety:
The ULC failed to notify the applicant of inspection findings, invite her to meetings, or allow her to respond, violating natural justice under Article 42 of the 1995 Constitution. Counsel cited Kaggwa Andrew & 5 Others v. Minister of Internal Affairs (HCT-00-CV-MC-0105 OF 2002) and Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] AC 40, arguing the decisions were null and void. The second inspection created a legitimate expectation of fairness, which was unmet.
Illegality:
The ULC lacked power to rescind a registered lease without notice or due process, acting ultra vires under the Registration of Titles Act (Cap. 230). Counsel referenced John Tumwebaze v. Uganda Land Commission & Attorney General (HCT-05-CV-MA-0123-2008), noting procedures for de-registration were ignored. The Attorney General's advice against cancellation was disregarded, rendering the action unlawful. Cited R v. Lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page [1993] AC 682 for the principle that powers must be exercised lawfully.
Irrationality:
The decisions defied logic, as no sensible body would rescind a valid lease during a routine consent application without justification or hearing. Counsel invoked Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (GCHQ case), arguing the process lacked transparency and reasonableness, especially ignoring the Attorney General's advice.
Remedies:
Sought quashing of decisions, mandamus for consent, injunction, and UGX 1,000,000,000 in damages for distress, health impact, and reputational harm from media innuendos. Relied on Kayonza Distributors v. Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 211 of 2008) and Dr Semambo v. National Animal Genetic Resources & Data Bank (HC-MC-30-2017) to justify damages for high-handed conduct and impunity.

LEGAL REPRESENTATION

Applicant, M/s Ouma & Company Advocates
Respondent, No appearance; respondent failed to file any reply or submissions despite proper service.

COURT’S FINDINGS

Justice Kinobe made detailed findings under each issue in accordance with judicial review principles, emphasizing that the Court’s role was to assess the decision-making process, not the merits, as established in Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council & Others [2008] 2 EA 300.

A. Amenability to Judicial Review

The Court held that the application fully satisfied Rule 7A of the Judicial Review Rules, 2019.

Justice Kinobe noted:

“It is not in doubt that the respondent is a public body… the applicant has a direct and sufficient interest… the decisions of the respondent are final in nature.”

The Court further found that the application was filed within the statutory timelines, making it properly before the Court.

The matter was amenable to judicial review because

(i) ULC is a public body,

(ii) the Applicant was directly affected, and

(iii) the decisions were final and had immediate legal consequences.

B. Rejection of Consent to Transfer thus Procedural Impropriety, Illegality & Irrationality

The Court found serious procedural breaches in ULC’s refusal to grant consent:

The Applicant was never invited to any hearing.
She was not informed of the alleged land conflict.
She received no reasons for the rejection.
She was denied an opportunity to respond to adverse findings.

Justice Kinobe held:

“The applicant was never invited for any proceedings… never informed of any reasons why the respondent would reject her request… Such a decision is null and void for violation of natural justice.”

The Court also held the decision was irrational, noting:

“I am compelled to find that the decision to reject the applicant’s request for consent to transfer was unreasonable.”

These findings were supported by Pastoli and Kaggwa Andrew v Minister of Internal Affairs.

The rejection was procedurally improper, ultra vires, and unreasonably made in violation of natural justice.

C. Rescission of the Lease hence Illegality and Ultra Vires Conduct

The Court found that ULC had absolutely no power to rescind a lease once it had been registered under the RTA.

Justice Kinobe stated:

“Once the respondent issues a lease and the lease is registered on the title, the respondent does not have the powers to rescind or cancel that lease.”

He further emphasized:

“There are procedures by which land under the RTA may be de-registered… Failure to comply renders the decision a nullity.”

Additionally, ULC ignored the Attorney General’s legal advice, which the Court described as:

“Blatant disregard… irrational and unreasonable.”

The rescission was illegal, ultra vires, irrational, and executed without following mandatory procedures under the RTA.

D. Irrationality

The Court categorically held that ULC acted in a manner no reasonable authority would.

Justice Kinobe found:

“Such gross unreasonableness in the decision… is in defiance of logic and acceptable moral standards.”

The alleged dispute with UVRI:

Was never communicated,
Was not substantiated,
Was not handled procedurally, and
Had no evidential basis.

The decisions were irrational, unsupported by evidence, and contrary to basic administrative standards.

Remedies and Damages

The Court awarded the Applicant most of the remedies sought, including damages for distress caused by ULC’s conduct.

Justice Kinobe held:

“Cancelling the applicant’s lease without due process caused the applicant a lot of distress… the respondents’ high-handed conduct warrants damages.”

The Applicant had sought UGX 1 billion, but the Court exercised discretion and awarded UGX 40 million, finding it proportionate.

HOLDING

The Court made the following orders:

Declaration
ULC’s decisions under Minute 40/2025(r)(57) were illegal, irrational, and procedurally improper.
Certiorari
Quashed the decision rejecting the consent to transfer.
Mandamus
Directed ULC to grant consent to transfer in accordance with the law.
Certiorari
Quashed the decision purporting to rescind the lease.
Permanent Injunction
Restrained ULC from acting on the impugned decisions or interfering with the Applicant’s leasehold interest.
General Damages
UGX 40,000,000 awarded for distress and inconvenience.
Interest
6% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
Costs
Awarded to the Applicant.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

1. ULC Has No Power to Cancel a Registered Lease

Once a lease is registered under the RTA, cancellation can only happen through court-sanctioned processes, not by unilateral administrative action.

2. Public Bodies Must Observe Natural Justice

Before making decisions affecting rights, authorities must:

Notify affected parties,
Provide reasons,
Allow a fair hearing.

Failure renders decisions void under Article 42 of the Constitution.

3. The Right to Be Heard Is Constitutional

Administrative bodies must respect the constitutional guarantee of just and fair treatment; procedural shortcuts are unlawful.

4. Consent to Transfer Cannot Be Withheld Arbitrarily

For long-term leases, consent must be grounded in lawful and reasonable considerations, not speculation or unverified allegations.

5. Attorney General’s Advice Matters

Government agencies must not disregard the Attorney General’s legal opinions. Doing so may amount to irrationality and illegality, attracting judicial intervention.

6. Failure to Defend Weakens the Public Body’s Case

ULC’s failure to file a defence left the Applicant’s evidence unchallenged and further demonstrated administrative irresponsibility.

7. Judicial Review Protects Citizens From Abuse of Power

Courts will intervene where public authorities act:

Illegally,
Irrationally,
In bad faith, or
In violation of natural justice.

Read the full case