Tanna v Sr. Munyinza and Another (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12 92)

Supreme Court · [1993] UGSC 51 · 1993 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Civil appeal from a High Court judgment dismissing a suit for vacant possession and a declaration of title

Decision

Appeal dismissed; the appellant's purchase and registered title held to be nullified by the Expropriated Properties Act, 1982

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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 dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit property, formerly owned by a departed Asian and vested in the Government, fell within the Expropriated Properties Act, 1982. By section 1(2)(a) of that Act, the purchase and transfer of the property to the appellant following the mortgagee's sale were nullified, notwithstanding any written law under which the bank was entitled to sell. The court did not need to decide whether the mortgagee's power of sale was validly exercised, nor whether the appellant's registered title was protected under section 56 of the Registration of Titles Act, since the transaction was void. The court also condemned the parties' agreement to bind the trial judge to a predetermined outcome.

Facts

The suit property, a house on Plot No. 12 Mannington Road, Kampala, was originally registered in the name of a departed Asian and, from 1972, was expropriated and vested in the Government under the Assets of Departed Asians Decree, 1973, managed by the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board. Uganda Commercial Bank held a mortgage over the property and, on default, exercised its power of sale, selling the property at public auction to the appellant on 22 February 1982. The bank executed a transfer and released the mortgage, and the appellant was registered as proprietor on 6 May 1982. The Expropriated Properties Act, 1982 came into force on 21 February 1983. The first respondent occupied the property as a tenant of the Board and refused to recognise the appellant's ownership or to enter into a tenancy with him. The appellant sued for vacant possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits, damages, and a declaration that the second respondent had no legal or equitable interest in the property. The respondents resisted the claims on the ground that the Act had vested the property in the second respondent and nullified the appellant's registration.

Issues

Whether the sale and transfer of the suit property to the appellant was nullified by section 1 of the Expropriated Properties Act, 1982.
Whether parties may by agreement bind the trial judge to enter judgment for one side on a predetermined finding of the framed issue.

Orders

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Key headnotes

Expropriated Property — Departed Asians' property — Nullification of dealings under the Expropriated Properties Act, 1982

Property formerly owned by a departed Asian and vested in the Government under the Assets of Departed Asians Decree, 1973 falls within the Expropriated Properties Act, 1982, and any purchase, transfer or dealing in such property is nullified by section 1(2)(a) of that Act, notwithstanding the provisions of any written law governing the conferring or transfer of title.

Mortgage — Mortgagee's power of sale — Sale of expropriated property nullified

A sale and transfer effected by a mortgagee in exercise of its power of sale is nullified by section 1(2)(a) of the Expropriated Properties Act, 1982 where the property is expropriated property vested in the Government, regardless of the mortgagee's entitlement to sell under the Mortgage Decree, 1974, and the validity of the sale procedure need not be considered once the transaction is void.

Framing of issues — Agreement of parties binding the court — Ousting the court's adjudicative function

Parties cannot by agreement bind a trial judge in advance to enter judgment for one or other side upon a predetermined finding of the framed issue; such an agreement is objectionable because it ties the judge's hands and seeks to oust the court's function to adjudicate the dispute justly and in accordance with the law.

Legislation cited (10)

Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.1
Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.5(2)
Assets of Departed Asians Decree 1973 s.4
Assets of Departed Asians Decree 1973 s.13
Assets of Departed Asians Decree 1973 s.28
Mortgage Decree 1974 s.9
Registration of Titles Act s.56 (Cap. 205)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.90
Rules of the Supreme Court r.91
Rules of the Supreme Court r.101

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.