Wakilii

M S Tatu Naiga & Co. Emprorium v Verjee Brothers Limited (Civil Appeal 8 of 2000)

Supreme Court · [2002] UGSC 20 · 2002 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second civil appeal from the Court of Appeal, which had dismissed an appeal from a High Court civil suit over repossessed property, mesne profits and a counterclaim for compensation.
Decision
Appeal partly allowed; appellant awarded costs and 25% per annum interest on the Shs 50,000,000 compensation from the date of the High Court judgment, with the respondent's awards confirmed.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 5 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 Supreme Court rejected the appellant's challenges to the respondent company's repossession of expropriated property and the mesne profits award, holding that an authorised director may act for a company and instruct advocates, that a tenant refusing to recognise the rightful owner becomes a trespasser liable for mesne profits, and that compensation for improvements must be strictly proved. It partly allowed the appeal on costs, holding that a party who successfully proves a counterclaim is entitled to costs and interest unless sound reasons relating to the counterclaim justify refusal. The appellant was awarded costs and 25% interest on its Shs 50,000,000 compensation; the awards to the respondent were confirmed.

Facts

Plot 7 Burton Street, Kampala was owned by the respondent company, whose Asian directors were expelled in 1972. The property vested in government and was managed by the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board, which allocated the shops to tenants, including the appellant. During the 1979 liberation war part of the building was damaged. In 1984 the Custodian Board permitted the appellant to reconstruct the damaged portion, after which the appellant occupied one shop rent-free and collected rent from the other tenants. In 1992 the respondent repossessed the property under the Expropriated Properties Act, 1982. The appellant refused to recognise the respondent as owner, resisted possession, continued collecting rent and lodged a caveat. The respondent sued; the High Court ordered the appellant to vacate, pay mesne profits, awarded the appellant compensation of Shs 50,000,000 for improvements but denied costs and interest on that sum. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, leading to this further appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit property was lawfully repossessed by the respondent company under the Expropriated Properties Act, 1982.
  2. Whether the person who obtained the certificate of repossession and instructed advocates was clothed with the authority of the respondent company.
  3. Whether the Court of Appeal, as first appellate court, failed to re-evaluate the evidence relating to the appellant's counterclaim for compensation and the respondent's claim for mesne profits.
  4. Whether the trial judge erred in denying the appellant costs and interest after the appellant succeeded on its counterclaim for compensation.
  5. Whether the award of interest on the mesne profits at 25% per annum should be disturbed.

Orders

  • Appeal partly allowed; ground 5 upheld in part.
  • Appellant awarded costs on the counterclaim in the Supreme Court and in the courts below.
  • Interest at 25% per annum to run on the Shs 50,000,000 compensation awarded to the appellant from the date of the High Court judgment until payment in full.
  • Orders of the Court of Appeal in relation to the awards given to the respondent confirmed.

Key headnotes

Company Law — Authority of Directors — Power to Instruct Advocates and Grant Powers of Attorney
A director who is authorised to act on behalf of a company has, unless the contrary is shown, the powers of the board of directors to act for the company, including granting a power of attorney and instructing advocates to institute a suit in the company's name.
Land & Property — Mesne Profits — Tenant Refusing to Recognise Owner Becomes Trespasser
A tenant who refuses to pay rent to, or to acknowledge the title of, the rightful owner as landlord becomes a trespasser and is liable to pay mesne profits for the period of unlawful occupation.
Land & Property — Expropriated Properties Act — No Right to Retain Possession Pending Compensation
A person who effected improvements on expropriated property is entitled under section 11(2) of the Expropriated Properties Act to payment of their value, but is not entitled to retain possession pending payment of that compensation.
Evidence — Strict Proof — Compensation for Improvements
Compensation for improvements under section 11(2) of the Expropriated Properties Act, like special damages, must be strictly proved.
Civil Procedure — First Appellate Court — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
A first appellate court must re-evaluate the evidence and reach its own conclusions, but where it agrees with the trial judge's reasoning and conclusions it need not repeat the analysis in detail; brevity may amount to inadequate evaluation but not to a lack of evaluation.
Civil Procedure — Costs and Interest — Successful Party on a Counterclaim
A party who successfully proves its counterclaim is entitled to costs and interest on the sum awarded unless the court gives sound reasons, relating to the conduct of the counterclaim itself, for depriving it of those costs and interest.
Evidence — Unsworn Testimony — Effect on Validity of Judgment
Evidence received without oath does not per se cause a miscarriage of justice where the witnesses were cross-examined; section 12 of the Oaths Act bars a judgment founded on unsworn evidence only where there is no corroboration.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Expropriated Properties Act, 1982 s.11(2)
  • Assets of Departed Asians Decree No. 27 of 1973
  • Companies Act
  • Civil Procedure Act s.26(2)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.27(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order VIII r.13
  • Oaths Act s.12
  • Evidence Act
  • Supreme Court Rules r.81
  • Supreme Court Rules r.85(2)
  • Statutory Instrument No. 1 of 1994

Cases cited (15)

  • British Estate Coffee Ltd and Two Others v S. Lutabi and Another (1962) E.A. 328
  • Bugerere Coffee Growers Ltd v Zulubebri Kikuvu (1970) E.A. 149
  • United Assurance Co. Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1986)
  • Marendrah K. Radia v Kakubhai Kalidas & Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1994)
  • Joy Tumushabe and Another v M/s Anglo-African Ltd and Another (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1999)
  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd (1973) E.A. 358
  • Ecta (U) Ltd v Geraldine Namirimu and Another (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1994)
  • Patel v Spear Motors Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1999)
  • Devra Nanji Dattani v Haridas Kalida Dawda (1949) 16 E.A.C.A. 35
  • Kiska Ltd v De Angelis (1969) E.A. 6
  • Provincial Bill Posting Co v Law Moor Iron Co (1909) 2 K.B. 344
  • Peters v Sunday Post Ltd (1958) E.A. 424
  • Watt v Thomas (1947) 1 All E.R. 582
  • Omychund v Barker (1744) 26 E.R. 15
  • Musisi v Scietco (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1993)
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.