LDC #LegalAlert
LEGAL ALERTS
KEY HIGHLIGHTS
Substituted service in a newspaper publication may be
found to be sufficient in a situation where the address
of the affected party is not known.
However, in a matter where the address of the
affected party is known, this substituted service is
insufficient. This is especially true because a
significant percentage of Ugandans are illiterate and
do not read or have access to newspapers.
In a matter affecting a party’s interest in land, all
efforts should have been made to serve the applicant
personally at his registered address. Any service to
another address or service by substituted service
would be insufficient and done in bad faith, with the
intention of denying the affected party his inherent
right to be heard.
Case Brief of the ruling in Byaruhanga John Patrick v. Commissioner Land
Registration, Miscellaneous Application No. 235 of 2024
The respondent further argued it
Case Brief followed statutory procedures, including
notifying the applicant via his registered
mail and the Daily Monitor Publications.
The applicant, sought judicial review of The Court first addressed the preliminary
the Commissioner of Land Registration’s objections raised by the respondent,
decision to cancel his title, arguing the beginning with the claim that the
decision was illegal, irrational, and applicant had not exhausted local
procedurally improper due to a lack of a remedies.
fair hearing. He claimed the notice for
the hearing was sent to the wrong The respondent relied on Section 88(12)
address, preventing him from being of the Land Act, which provides for an
aware of the proceedings. appeal to the District Land Board from
decisions made by the Commissioner,
The respondent, in defense, maintained arguing that the appellant's jurisdiction
that the cancellation was lawful based was vested in the courts, given that the
on a complaint by the administrator of District Land Tribunals no longer exist,
the estate of the late Mulindwa Zakayo, and that the remedy available to the
who had alleged that the title had been applicant was an appeal to the courts,
illegally subdivided. not judicial review.
The court agreed with the position in the notice was sent to an incorrect
National Union of Clerical, Commercial & address, P.O. Box 10454, Kampala, instead
Technical Employees vs. NIC SCCA No. of the registered address, P.O. Box 142
17/1993, where it was stated that the court Mityana. The Respondent contended that
has discretion to invoke its inherent the applicant was served as per the law,
jurisdiction to disregard specific legal on his registered mail and in the Daily
provisions or procedures, which should Monitor Publications.
be exercised judiciously based on the
demands of justice. It was emphasized The Court reasoned that substituted
that where an issue of "illegality" is service via publication is only valid when
raised, the court will not ignore it merely the affected party’s address is unknown.
because an alternative remedy, such as In this case, since the Applicant’s address
an appeal, exists. was known, the service was insufficient,
and was done in bad faith with the
The court noted that the wording of intention of denying the Applicant the
Section 88(12) is not mandatory and right to be heard. The Court agreed with
provides a remedy not easily accessible the Applicant that he was not accorded a
to the applicant. It emphasized that the fair hearing, and the failure to serve the
court cannot fetter its powers to notice properly amounted to procedural
investigate illegality arising from impropriety. The Court found that the
excessive authority leading to a Respondent’s actions were ultra vires and
miscarriage of justice and is empowered procedurally irregular, rendering the
to supervise administrative entities to decision unreasonable.
prevent abuse of power. It found that an
appeal would not suffice in this case On remedies available to the parties, the
since the applicant was not heard, and court first emphasized that the grant of
his side would not be in the appeal judicial review remedies is discretionary
record. The court dismissed the first and does not automatically follow that if
preliminary objection and proceeded to there are grounds to question a decision,
the second. action, or omission, the court will issue
any remedy. Even where the applicant
The second objection concerned the has a strong case on the merits, the court
claim that not all parties likely to be will weigh various factors before deciding
affected by the judicial review had been whether to grant a remedy in any
served. The Court reasoned that judicial particular case.
review challenges the excessive use of
powers by an administrative entity, not The court issued a declaratory order
the private rights of individuals. As the stating that the respondent’s
relevant party was the Commissioner for cancellation of the applicant’s title was
Land Registration, who had been served, illegal and improper, quashed the
the Court dismissed this objection as well. respondent’s decision, granted a
permanent injunction to prevent further
After dismissing the preliminary unlawful alterations, and awarded costs
objections, the Court considered whether to the applicant.
the Respondent’s decision to cancel the
Applicant’s title was tainted with
illegality, irrationality, and procedural Ruling Details
impropriety. The Applicant argued that
the decision was illegal and irrational Ruling by Hon. Justice Simon Peter M.
due to not being given a fair hearing, as Kinobe on 7th May 2025.
Listen to the audio
VERSION OF TODAY'S ALERT
Ckick here to listen Ckick here to listen Ckick here to listen
to the Swahili Audio to the English Audio to the Luganda
Summary Summary Audio Summary
NB
To access today's Legal Alert
audio summary in a specific
language, simply click on the
corresponding language icon.
Prepared by the Department of Law Reporting, Research and
Law Reform at the Law Development Centre
Law Development Centre
Follow Us
www.ldc.ac.ug
