Ojede v Lutalo (Civil Appeal No. 126 of 2012)

Court of Appeal · [2019] UGCA 123 · 2019 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Civil appeal from the High Court's dismissal of a suit for recovery of land and cancellation of title

Decision

Appeal allowed; appellant declared entitled to Part 'B' of the suit property and to be registered as administrator thereof

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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 suit property was not subject to the Expropriated Properties Act because the appellant's father was a Ugandan, not a departed Asian or 'former owner' within section 1(c) of the Act. However, the District Land Board could not lawfully grant a lease to the respondent because, on the expiry of the original statutory lease and the revocation of statutory leases to urban authorities under article 286 of the Constitution, the appellant's family had acquired ownership by prescription after over 20 years' occupation and was entitled to apply for freehold under article 237. The appeal was allowed; the appellant was entitled to Part 'B' of the plot.

Facts

The appellant's father purchased an undivided half share of land comprised in LRV 7 Folio 21, Plot 5 Bazaar Road, Lira, from Asian proprietors in 1971, before the expulsion of Asians from Uganda. The father, a Ugandan born in Lira, died in 1976. The appellant, through his grandfather and later himself, obtained letters of administration to the estate. The family occupied the property from 1971 except during exile in 1979. The original lease had expired in 1973. A certificate of repossession under the Expropriated Properties Act issued in 1994 affected the property, but the appellant's application for a special certificate was rejected by the Commissioner for Land Registration in 1997. The Lira District Land Board subsequently granted a lease over the whole property to the respondent, who was issued a certificate of title in 2005. The appellant sued for cancellation of the respondent's title, claiming the family's continued ownership of half (Part 'B') of the property.

Issues

Whether the suit property was subject to the provisions of the Expropriated Properties Act.
Whether the District Land Board acted correctly to grant ownership of the suit property to the respondent while the appellant occupied and claimed ownership.
Whether the defendants acted fraudulently in dealing with the suit property.
What remedies were available to the parties.

Orders

Ground one of the appeal disallowed.
Ground two of the appeal allowed.
The appellant's appeal allowed.
The appellant entitled to Part 'B' of the plot; the respondent may claim Part 'A'.
Any title issued by the District Land Board shall reflect the interests of the appellant's family.
The appellant to be registered as administrator of Part 'B' of the property.
Costs awarded to the appellant.

Key headnotes

Expropriated Properties Act — Meaning of 'former owner' — Property of Ugandan citizens

Property belonging to a Ugandan citizen who was not expelled or forced to flee Uganda during the military regime is not subject to the Expropriated Properties Act, since such a person does not fall within the definition of 'former owner' under section 1(c) of the Act.

Land tenure — Revocation of statutory leases to urban authorities under article 286 — Effect of repeal

Statutory leases granted to urban authorities ceased to exist upon the coming into force of the 1995 Constitution under article 286, and the subsequent repeal of article 286 did not revive such statutory leases.

District Land Board — Power to grant lease — Reversionary interest required

A District Land Board cannot take over the role of lessor and grant a lease over property where the original lease was issued by a former designated authority (such as a town council) rather than a former controlling authority, as it holds no reversionary interest under section 59(1)(c) of the Land Act.

Acquisition of title — Ownership by prescription — Right to convert to freehold

Where a family has occupied land for more than 20 years, they acquire ownership by prescription and, where Ugandan citizens, are entitled to apply for recognition of ownership and conversion to freehold under article 237 of the Constitution.

First appellate court — Duty to reappraise evidence

A first appellate court has a duty under Rule 30(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules to reappraise the evidence and draw its own inferences of fact, exercising such jurisdiction with caution and bearing in mind that it did not see the witnesses testify.

Legislation cited (13)

Expropriated Properties Act Cap 87 s.1(c)
Expropriated Properties Act Cap 87 s.2(2)
Expropriated Properties Act Cap 87 s.6
Expropriated Properties Act Cap 87 s.8(1)(d)
Land Act Cap 227 s.1(m)
Land Act Cap 227 s.1(n)
Land Act Cap 227 s.59(1)(c)
Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 article 237(1)
Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 article 237(5)
Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 article 237(6)
Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 article 237(7)
Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 article 286
Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 30(1)

Cases cited (3)

Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
Peters v Sunday Post Limited [1958] 1 EA 424
Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)

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.