[2005] UGHC 96

[2005] UGHC 96

The court found that the correspondence from the Bushenyi Land Tribunal to the first applicant did not amount to a mandatory order requiring him to leave the land. The letters merely advised and requested the applicant to leave and to report to the office of the respondent for clarification. There was no evidence that the applicant was compelled to vacate the land or that he did so. As such, there was no operative order or decision for the court to quash by way of certiorari. The court emphasized that the writ of certiorari is discretionary and only issues in appropriate circumstances where there is a clear decision or order to be quashed. Since no such decision existed in this case, the...

Citation
[2005] UGHC 96
Parties
Applicant: Mwebaze Fred; Applicant: Paddy Vincent; Respondent: Bushenyi Land Tribunal
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
31 May 2005
Case Number
HCT-05-CV-MA-0 143-2003
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Prerogative Writ of Certiorari
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Certiorari, Natural Justice, Land Tribunals, Jurisdiction, Administrative Decisions
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Land and Property Judicial Review Certiorari Natural Justice Land Tribunals Jurisdiction Administrative Decisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mwebaze Fred

Applicant

Paddy Vincent

Applicant

Bushenyi Land Tribunal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Prerogative Writ of Certiorari

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision of the Bushenyi Land Tribunal dated 5th February 2003 directing the first applicant to leave his land was arbitrary, oppressive, or contrary to the rules of natural justice.
  2. 2 Whether the Bushenyi Land Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in issuing the directive.
  3. 3 Whether the circumstances warranted the issuance of a prerogative writ of certiorari.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the correspondence from the Bushenyi Land Tribunal to the first applicant did not amount to a mandatory order requiring him to leave the land. The letters merely advised and requested the applicant to leave and to report to the office of the respondent for clarification. There was no evidence that the applicant was compelled to vacate the land or that he did so. As such, there was no operative order or decision for the court to quash by way of certiorari. The court emphasized that the writ of certiorari is discretionary and only issues in appropriate circumstances where there is a clear decision or order to be quashed. Since no such decision existed in this case, the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for a prerogative writ of certiorari is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.