Court Dismisses Challenge to Minister Mayanja’s Naguru Prime Land Directives

KAMPALA: The High Court in Kampala has dismissed a bid by Misbahu Din Muslim Community Limited and Hanifa Nabuuma to overturn directives issued by the State Minister for Lands Sam Mayanja regarding two prime plots in Naguru, ruling that the challenge was filed prematurely and was not amenable to judicial review.

In a decision delivered by Lady Justice Joyce Kavuma, the Civil Division of the High Court held that the applicants had moved court before any binding action had been taken by the government official mandated to cancel or rectify land titles, the Commissioner for Land Registration, rendering the dispute speculative.

The applicants had sought sweeping remedies including declarations that the Minister’s directives were illegal and ultra vires, orders of certiorari and prohibition, punitive damages, and costs.

They argued that the Minister had no authority under the Land Act to cancel titles for land described as Freehold Register Volume 963 Folio 25 Plot 54A and Freehold Register Volume KCCA 93 Folio 8 Plot 3, both on Naguru Drive.

Through Fides Legal Advocates, the applicants contended that the Minister acted outside the law by directing cancellation of their titles in an April 22, 2025 letter, insisting the power to cancel or rectify land titles lies strictly with the Commissioner for Land Registration under Section 88 of the Land Act.

Their lawyers argued that the Minister’s actions were tainted by procedural impropriety and violated the applicants’ right to a fair hearing.

They cited previous High Court decisions that limited ministerial authority in land administration and emphasised that the Commissioner becomes functus officio once he has exercised powers under the law.

Attorney General

State Attorney Emmanuel Achellam, representing the Attorney General, opposed the application, arguing that judicial review was inappropriate because the applicants were challenging issues of land ownership, matters better addressed through ordinary civil proceedings.

He added that the minister’s letter was only “administrative guidance” addressed to a Senior Presidential Advisor, not a directive to the Commissioner for Land Registration, and therefore had no legal effect on the applicants’ titles.

The Attorney General also pointed out that the application was lodged nearly nine years after the events being complained of, further weakening the applicants’ case.

Justice Kavuma agreed with the respondent, finding that although the Minister had issued directives, they were not addressed to the Commissioner for Land Registration, the only official empowered to initiate processes that could affect land titles.

“The directives were issued to a Senior Presidential Advisor and not to the Commissioner Land Registration,” she noted, adding that there was no evidence that the Commissioner had been instructed to act or had taken any steps toward implementation.

She emphasized that judicial review applies only when a public decision has been made or is imminent, and cannot be invoked over speculative or hypothetical concerns.

A claimant, the judge said, must act “promptly but must not jump the gun.”

Justice Kavuma concluded that the applicants remain in peaceful occupation of the Naguru properties and that no legal process affecting their titles had been triggered under Section 88 of the Land Act.

“For the above reasons, I find that this application was brought prematurely and it ought to be dismissed,” she ruled. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The ruling underscores ongoing tensions around land administration in Kampala, where contested directives, political influence, and procedural disputes continue to fuel litigation, particularly in high-value neighbourhoods such as Naguru.