Wakilii

Christopher Sebuliba v The Attorney General of Uganda [1992] UGSC 6

Supreme Court · 1992 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 damages against the Attorney General
Decision
Appeal allowed; declaration of ownership and entitlement to possession granted in favour of the appellant against the Attorney General, with damages and costs

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

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 Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the army personnel were employees of the Ministry of Defence kept in occupation of the appellant's premises after the lease was determined, so this was a case of holding over for which the Attorney General was vicariously liable and was properly sued in his representative capacity. The Court substituted judgment for the appellant with a declaration that he is owner and entitled to immediate possession, plus damages and costs. The judges divided on remedy: the majority (Wambuzi CJ and Seaton JSC) held section 15(1)(b) of the Government Proceedings Act bars an eviction order against the Government, permitting only a declaration in lieu; Platt JSC considered the Government had impliedly waived that protection.

Facts

The appellant was the registered proprietor of Plot No. 21 Namirembe Road, Kampala. In 1979 he leased the premises to the Commissioner of Lands and Surveys, acting for the Ministry of Defence, for a term expiring on 31 December 1984, and military officers and personnel were housed there. After the lease was determined, the Ministry of Lands communicated the termination and notice of eviction to the Ministry of Defence and stopped paying rent. Two army personnel (the 2nd and 3rd defendants) remained in occupation, and through the Director of Legal Services of the National Resistance Army the Army insisted the premises was a defence house and that its employees would not leave without a court order. The appellant sued the Attorney General and the two personnel for a declaration of ownership, eviction, general damages for trespass and costs. The Attorney General denied vicarious liability, contending the personnel occupied in their private capacities. The High Court entered default judgment against the personnel but dismissed the suit against the Attorney General.

Issues

  1. Whether the Attorney General, representing the Ministry of Defence, was vicariously liable for the continued occupation of the suit premises by army personnel kept in occupation after the determination of the lease.
  2. Whether the court could make an order of eviction or recovery of land against the Government, or whether section 15(1)(b) of the Government Proceedings Act confined it to a declaration in lieu.
  3. Whether the Government could be held to have waived the procedural protection of section 15 of the Government Proceedings Act.
  4. On what basis the appellant's general damages for trespass and mesne profits should be assessed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment in favour of the Attorney General set aside and judgment substituted in favour of the appellant.
  • Declaration granted that the appellant is the owner of the suit premises and entitled to immediate possession.
  • Judgment and eviction orders against the 2nd and 3rd defendants set aside (per the majority).
  • General damages awarded to the appellant (assessed by Platt JSC at Shs. 11,745/= new currency net of tax; the court otherwise directing damages at Shs. 15,000/= per month old money until judgment, converted to new money).
  • Costs of the appeal and of the trial below awarded to the appellant.

Key headnotes

Landlord and Tenant — Holding Over — Liability after Determination of Lease
Liability under a lease does not cease on determination of the lease where the lessee holds over; the lessee then remains in breach of the agreement and liable as such, and where employees are kept in occupation by their employer after termination they are there by the employer's authority.
Vicarious Liability — Government — Employees Retained in Occupation
Where army personnel remain in occupation of premises after the lease is determined with the support and at the direction of the Ministry and Army that employs them, the Government is vicariously liable and the Attorney General is properly sued in his representative capacity.
Government Proceedings — Relief Against the Government — Recovery of Land
In proceedings against the Government for the recovery of land, section 15(1)(b) of the Government Proceedings Act prohibits the court from ordering recovery of the land or delivery of the property, but permits an order declaring that the plaintiff is entitled as against the Government to the land or to its possession in lieu thereof.
Government Proceedings — Section 15(2) — Orders Against Government Officers
The court will not make an order against an officer of the Government where the effect would be to give relief against the Government that could not be obtained directly against it, so an eviction order against the defaulting officers is caught by section 15(2) of the Government Proceedings Act.
Government Proceedings — Waiver of Procedural Protection of Section 15 (minority view)
The protection of section 15 of the Government Proceedings Act is a procedural protection against a wrong done by the Government, and where the Government has not asserted its interest nor relied on the protection but has impliedly waived it, the court may grant an order of eviction against the Government (per Platt JSC, dissenting on remedy).
Damages — Mesne Profits and Repairs — Proof of Quantum
Damages must be proved by evidence; absent evidence of the market rental value of premises, mesne profits are limited to the rent originally agreed, and a mere guess at the cost of repairs is insufficient to support an award.
Appeals — Powers of Appellate Court Over Non-Appealing Parties
An appellate court may set aside orders made against parties who have not appealed where those orders are ultimately unlawful, in order to guard against accidental non-compliance with an Act of Parliament and to determine the real questions in controversy.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Government Proceedings Act (Cap 69) s.15
  • Government Proceedings Act (Cap 69) s.2
  • Government Proceedings Act (Cap 69) s.31
  • Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (England) s.1
  • Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (England) s.17
  • Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (England) s.18
  • Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (England) s.21

Cases cited (2)

  • Dyson v Attorney General [1911] 1 KB 410
  • Pawlett v. Attorney General
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.