Wakilii

Ebrahim Alarakhia Kassam and 2 Others vs Salik (U) Ltd and 3 Others (Civil Appeal No 4 of 1997)

Court of Appeal · [1998] UGCA 17 · 1998 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court judgment awarding compensation for improvements to expropriated property
Decision
Appeal allowed; trial declared a nullity; respondents' suit dismissed with costs

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court has no original jurisdiction over claims for compensation for improvements made to property subject to the Expropriated Properties Act 1982. A claimant must first lodge the claim with the Verification Committee under regulation 8(1) and obtain the Minister's determination under section 12; only a person aggrieved by the Minister's decision may approach the High Court by way of appeal under section 14(1). The trial Judge erred in applying the ordinary rules of proof for liquidated claims and entertaining the suit at first instance. As the High Court lacked original jurisdiction, the trial was a nullity. The appeal was allowed and the respondents' suit dismissed with costs.

Facts

The appellants were the original proprietors of Plots 51/2 Kampala Road. They left Uganda in 1972 as departed Asians, and the premises vested in the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board for management. The 1st and 2nd respondents became allocatees and occupied the premises until 1985 when they were allegedly gutted by fire. With the Board's permission, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents reconstructed the premises on plans approved by Kampala City Council. The 4th respondent later took over occupation. The appellants repossessed the premises in 1991 and served notice to vacate. The respondents instead sued in the High Court claiming Shs. 70,000,000 as their reconstruction costs. The appellants objected that the suit was premature for failure to comply with the Expropriated Properties Act 1982. The trial Judge entered judgment for the respondents, holding that ordinary rules of proof applied. The appellants appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has original jurisdiction to entertain a claim for compensation for improvements made to property to which the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 applies.
  2. Whether a claimant must first submit a claim to the Verification Committee and approach the High Court only by way of appeal under section 14(1) of the EPA.
  3. Whether the ordinary rules of proof applicable to liquidated claims apply to compensation claims under the EPA.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment and orders of the trial court set aside.
  • Judgment substituted dismissing the respondents' suit.
  • Costs to the appellants here and in the court below.

Key headnotes

Expropriated Property — Compensation for Improvements — Jurisdiction of the High Court
The High Court has no original jurisdiction to entertain a claim for compensation for improvements made to property to which the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 applies; its jurisdiction over such claims is appellate only.
Expropriated Property — Statutory Procedure — Verification Committee and Ministerial Determination
A claimant for the value of improvements made to expropriated property must first lodge the claim with the Verification Committee under regulation 8(1) of the 1983 Regulations, after which the Minister determines the value payable under section 12; only a person aggrieved by the Minister's decision may appeal to the High Court under section 14(1) of the EPA.
Original Jurisdiction — Article 139(1) Constitution and Section 16(10) Judicature Statute — Specific Statutory Procedure
The general unlimited original jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 139(1) of the Constitution and section 16(10) of the Judicature Statute does not displace the specific appellate procedure prescribed by section 14(1) of the Expropriated Properties Act; there is no ouster of jurisdiction, only a confining of it to appellate form.
Nullity — Suit Entertained Without Original Jurisdiction
Where a court entertains a suit over which it lacks original jurisdiction, the trial is a nullity and the resulting judgment cannot stand.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.11(2)
  • Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.12
  • Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.14(1)
  • Expropriated Properties (Repossession and Disposal) Regulations 1983 reg.8(1)
  • Expropriated Properties (Repossession and Disposal) Regulations 1983 reg.8(2)
  • Properties and Business (Acquisition) Decree No. 11 of 1975 s.2
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.139(1)
  • Judicature Statute No. 13 of 1996 s.16(10)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 5

Cases cited (1)

  • Shaban Matovu v Sikindar Hussein Esmail and Others (HCCS No. 283 of 1992)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.