Mohammed Allibhai v W.E Bukenya,Departed Asian property Custodian Board [1996] UGSC 13
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 appellant sought review of a consent judgment between two respondents to which he was not a party, claiming it was entered under a mistake of law about whether the suit property fell under the Expropriated Properties Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding he lacked locus standi: although a third party may apply for review under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 rule 1, he must be an aggrieved person against whom, or whose interest, the judgment operated. The consent judgment neither operated against the appellant nor prejudiced his independent rights as registered proprietor of the lease. He also lacked status, having acted as attorney before obtaining letters of administration.
Facts
The first respondent was registered proprietor of land at Kibuga Block 10 Plot 175, Namirembe, leased in 1955 to Fazal Visram, an Asian, for 49 years. After the 1972 expulsion of Asians, the building fell under the management of the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (second respondent) under the Assets of Departed Asians Decree 1973. The first respondent sued the Board for re-entry alleging breach of the lease covenants. On 24 February 1994 the parties entered a consent judgment declaring that the property had not become expropriated property under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982, that the Board had acquired no interest, and that the first respondent was free to seek re-entry. On 15 March 1995 the appellant, attorney and later administrator of the estate of the deceased lessee Fazal Visram, applied to review the consent judgment, alleging it rested on a mistake of law. The trial judge dismissed the application. The appellant had obtained letters of administration only on 28 June 1994 and a certificate of repossession on 8 November 1994, both after the consent judgment was entered.
Issues
- Whether the appellant, not having been a party to the proceedings that produced the consent judgment, was an aggrieved person with locus standi to apply for review under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Whether the consent judgment was entered under a common mistake of law as to the application of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 so as to warrant review.
- Whether an attorney acting under a power of attorney, before obtaining letters of administration, had locus standi to bring the application for review.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Costs of the appeal to the respondents.
Key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Civil Procedure Act s.83
- Civil Procedure Act s.101
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 42 r.1(b)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 42 r.8
- Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.1(1)(c)
- Registration of Titles Act s.102
- Registration of Titles Act s.113
- Assets of Departed Asians Decree No. 27 of 1973
- Rules of the Supreme Court r.1(3)
- Companies Act s.141
Cases cited (12)
- Hirani v Kassam (1952) 19 EACA 131
- Brooke Bond and Liebig (T) Ltd v Mallya (1975) EA 266
- Livingstone Sewanyana v Martin Liker (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1991)
- Lutaya v Gandesha (HCCS No. 860 of 1982)
- Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1993)
- Bell V lever Bros Ltd (1952) AC 161
- In Re: Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd and in the matter of the Companies Act (1979) HCB 12
- Yusufu v Nokrach (1971) EA 104
- Kawdu v Berar Ginning Co. Ltd (1929) AIR Nagpur 185
- Adonia v Mutekanga (1970) EA 429
- Ladak Abdulla Mohamed Hussein v Griffiths Isingoma Kakiiza (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1995)
- Kajubi v. Kayanja (1967) EA