Noordin Charania Walji v Drake Semakula (Civil Appeal 40 of 1995)
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 allowed the appeal. Although the respondent's 1980 re-entry under the lease was valid under the Registration of Titles Act, the suit property was a departed-Asian asset vested in the Custodian Board, so the re-entry was a "dealing of whatever kind" nullified by section 1(2)(a) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982, and the lease revived under section 1(2)(b). Holding a repossession certificate, the appellant was the lawful lessee in possession and could not be a trespasser. The general damages award could not stand because the expenses proved were special damages that had not been pleaded. A constitutional challenge to the Act could not be raised first on appeal.
Facts
In 1955 the respondent granted the appellant, an Indian merchant, a 49-year lease of mailo property on Balintuma Road, Kampala, subject to covenants to pay rent, maintain the buildings and use it residentially. In 1972 the appellant left Uganda during the expulsion of Asians, and the property was taken over by the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board. The Board breached the lease covenants, failing to pay rent and subletting. In 1980 the respondent re-entered and took possession under section 102(6) of the Registration of Titles Act, notifying the Board and the Registrar of Titles. In 1988 the appellant returned, obtained a repossession certificate under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982, and attempted to evict the respondent using auctioneers. The respondent resisted, incurring expenses repairing the neglected property and hiring people for security, and sued for general damages for threatened trespass and a declaration of ownership. The High Court found for the respondent and awarded Shs. 3,000,000 general damages, prompting this appeal.
Issues
- Whether the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 applied to the suit property.
- Whether the respondent's re-entry under the lease amounted to a "dealing" in the property that was nullified by section 1(2)(a) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982.
- Whether the respondent was entitled to general damages for threatened trespass.
- Whether the constitutionality of section 1(2)(a) of the Act could be raised for the first time on appeal.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Declaratory judgment and the award of Shs. 3,000,000 general damages set aside.
- Costs of the appeal and of the suit in the court below awarded to the appellant.
Key headnotes
Legislation cited (16)
- Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.1(1)
- Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.1(2)(a)
- Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.1(2)(b)
- Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.4
- Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.5
- Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.11(2)
- Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.14
- Registration of Titles Act (Cap 205) s.102
- Registration of Titles Act (Cap 205) s.102(6)
- Registration of Titles Act (Cap 205) s.105
- Registration of Titles Act (Cap 205) s.113
- Assets of Departed Asians Decree 1973
- Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 126(2)(e)
- Constitution of Uganda 1967 Article 13
- Constitution of Uganda 1967 Article 87
- Supreme Court Rules 1972 rule 91
Cases cited (1)
- Gokaldas Laximidas Tanna v Sister Mary Muyinza and Another (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1992)