Only the Secretary of ULC, not the Chairperson, may issue official correspondence. Any allocation communicated contrary to s.51(3) of the Land Act is illegal and void.High Court at Kampala Reaffirms

Waboga David
Nov 25
5 min read

Facts

The Plaintiff, Fakhri Enterprises Limited (FEL), applied to the Defendant, Uganda Land Commission (ULC), for a lease on approximately 810 hectares of land at Nakigoza, Bagya, Zirobwe, Luwero District, for commercial agriculture. On 31st March 2015, ULC's meeting (Minute ULC Min 20/2015 (a) (2), Exhibit PE1) deferred the decision pending an inspection by Hon. Janat Mukwaya (Commissioner) and Mr. Paul Idude (Principal Land Officer).A ULC team, including Hon. Janat Mukwaya, Hon. Matsiko Winnie, and Ms. Nandugwa Winifred, inspected the land on 24th April 2015 and produced a report (Exhibit PE2).

The report described the land as vacant, covered in shrubs and grassland, partly used for farming by a customary tenant (Mr. Mutyaba), with swampy areas and a river. It noted the land was public with no squatters and recommended considering FEL for a lease, as the applicant planned large-scale coffee farming to create jobs.

ULC's Chairman, Hon. Baguma Isoke, issued a letter dated 27th April 2015 (ULC/154/2669, Exhibit PE3), copied only to FEL, directing the Commissioner Surveys & Mapping to authorize a private firm for surveys, claiming that the lease had been granted.

A similar letter (Exhibit PE7) was issued on 27th April 2016, copied to ULC's Secretary and FEL.FEL proceeded with actions including:

Requesting survey instructions via Survey Tech Solutions (Exhibit PE5, dated 21st May 2015), approved by the Commissioner (Exhibit PE4, dated 22nd May 2015).
Commissioning a business plan from Agroallied Consulting Ltd (Exhibit PE6, dated 22nd June 2015).
Paying for survey services via receipts from D&E Geomapping & Surveying Consultants Ltd (Exhibits PE9 & PE10, various dates from May 2015 to September 2015).

No survey report resulted from initial efforts. FEL later commissioned New Age Surveyors, whose report (Exhibit PE11, dated 11th October 2018) revealed most of the land was in private Mailo blocks (with existing titles) and the rest in a wetland, preventing deed processing.

FEL sued for:

Declaration of unlawful conduct
Special damages
Compensation for economic loss
Alternatively, allocation of alternative land
General damages and interest

ULC denied liability, arguing that no allocation was ever made and the Chairperson’s letters were invalid.

Issues

Whether the Defendant allocated the suit land to the Plaintiff?
Whether the actions of the Defendant of allocating the land were fraudulent, negligent, or amounted to misrepresentation?
What remedies are the parties entitled to?

Submissions

Plaintiff's Submissions (by Mr. Paul Sebunya of M/S Paul Sebunya & Co. Advocates):

The Plaintiff argued that ULC allocated the land via the Chairman's letters (PE3 and PE7) and oral communications to FEL's Managing Director. They contended this constituted a valid allocation, and ULC's failure to deliver the land was fraudulent, negligent, and a misrepresentation, causing economic losses. Evidence from seven witnesses (PW1–PW7) detailed resources expended on surveys and planning, supporting claims for damages and alternative land.

Defendant's Submissions (by Ms. Charity Nabaasa from the Attorney General’s Chambers):

The Defendant denied allocation, asserting the land was mostly wetland and unsuitable. They argued FEL's private survey was unauthorized, the inspection report (PE2) was invalid as it was not signed by the approved team, and no breach occurred. Economic loss claims were deemed speculative. DW1 (Mr. Andrew Nyumba, Ag. Secretary) testified that Minute 20-2 merely deferred the decision, and the Chairman's letters were not binding.

LEGAL REPRESENTATION

Plaintiff, Mr. Paul Sebunya, M/S Paul Sebunya & Co. Advocates
Defendant, Ms. Charity Nabaasa, Attorney General’s Chambers

Court's Findings

a) Whether ULC Allocated the Land

The Court examined several legal instruments and records, including:

Article 239 of the Constitution – establishing the functions of the Uganda Land Commission (ULC).
Section 51(3) of the Land Act – which mandates that only the Secretary to the Commission may conduct ULC correspondence.
Minute 20-2 of 31st March 2015 – the minute that recorded the Commission’s decision on the Plaintiff’s request.

Minute 20-2 clearly showed that the Plaintiff’s application was deferred, not approved. It expressly stated that consideration of the application was postponed pending an inspection.

The Court held that the letters from the ULC Chairperson (PE3 and PE7), which purported to communicate a lease grant, were invalid because they violated Section 51(3) of the Land Act. The Judge stated:

“I find that the communication through the two letters by the Chairperson of the Commission, PE3 and PE7, were illegal acts not sanctioned under the law.”

Because the letters were issued without statutory authority, they could not constitute a lawful allocation.

The Court held:

“A plain reading of this minute indicates that no allocation of the suit land was made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.”

the Court stated:

“Section 51(3) of the Land Act makes it a mandatory statutory requirement that the Secretary conducts all correspondences on behalf of the ULC. I find that the communication through the two letters by the Chairperson of the Commission, PE3 and PE7, were illegal acts not sanctioned under the law.”

Therefore:

“No allocation of the suit land was made to the Plaintiff.”

Finally, the Court stressed the Plaintiff’s duty of diligence:

“The Plaintiff was the initiator and driver of the process… As a potential lessor of land in Uganda, the Plaintiff bore a non-transferable burden to ensure that his part of the transaction was lawful at every stage.”

The Court concluded:

“I find that no allocation of the suit land was made to the Plaintiff.”

b) Effect on Issues 2 and 3

Since the Court found that no allocation occurred, all issues relating to:

fraud,
negligence,
misrepresentation, and
entitlement to damages

were rendered moot. These issues could not arise in the absence of a lawful allocation.

c) Court’s Admonition to the Plaintiff

The Court strongly emphasized that the Plaintiff, as the applicant for a leasehold, bore the primary legal responsibility for ensuring its own compliance with the law. The Judge noted:

“The Plaintiff bore a non-transferable burden to ensure that his part of the transaction was lawful at every stage.”

She further warned that land use, even for beneficial or altruistic projects, must rest on strict legal compliance:

“All altruistic purposes for land use in Uganda must have a solid legal foundation of a flawless acquisition of the land.”

Holding

Issue 1:Resolved in the negative. ULC did not allocate the land.
Issues 2 & 3 Rendered moot by the findings under Issue 1.

The suit was dismissed with costs.

Key Takeaways

1. ULC Allocation Must Follow the Law

Only the ULC Secretary—not the Chairperson—may issue official correspondence.Any allocation communicated contrary to Section 51(3) of the Land Act is illegal, void, and unenforceable.

2. Applicants Bear Full Due Diligence Responsibility

The Court placed the burden squarely on the applicant to verify:

the legal status of the land,
ULC decisions, and
authenticity of communications.

3. ULC Minutes Are the Final and Binding Evidence

Minute 20-2 showed that the application was deferred.Applicants must rely on the official minutes—not on verbal communication or irregular letters.

A deferred minute does not equate to approval; further actions like inspections must resolve the deferral before any allocation is binding.