Wakilii

Mansukhlal Ramji Karia and Anor v Attoreny General and Ors (Civil Appeal 20 of 2002)

Supreme Court · [2004] UGSC 32 · 2004 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second civil appeal to the Supreme Court from a Court of Appeal decision affirming the High Court's dismissal of the suit on preliminary objections.
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the cancellation of the first appellant's repossession certificate and the vesting of the suit land in Government stand.

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 1 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 dismissed a second appeal arising from a challenge under s.15 of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 to the Minister's cancellation of the appellants' repossession certificate. It held that a s.15 challenge is instituted as an ordinary suit, so the appeal lay to it as of right. Although the lower courts erred in barring the appellants by res judicata without trying that contested issue (neither appellant having been a party to the earlier Civil Appeal No.36 of 1996), that decision was a judgment in rem fixing the suit land's status as vested in Government. Section 2 of the Act nullified the 1981-1982 transactions, so the appellants held no valid title and disclosed no cause of action.

Facts

Makerere Properties Ltd (R2) owned plot 13, Market Street, Kampala. Its Asian director-shareholders were expelled in 1972 and the land vested in Government under the Departed Asians Property Decree 1973. In 1981 Sadrudin Pirani, a director, manipulated R2's shareholding, obtained provisional return of the land, and sold it to the first appellant (A1), who was registered in 1982 and later passed it through intermediaries to the second appellant (A2). In 1992 the High Court found Sadrudin's share transfers fraudulent. In Civil Appeal No.36 of 1996 the Court of Appeal held the land had never validly been returned, that Act 9 of 1982 nullified the 1981-1982 dealings, and that it remained vested in Government, directing the Minister to deal with it under the Act. The Minister cancelled A1's repossession certificate (No.0607) and issued a fresh certificate to R2. The appellants then sued the respondents; the High Court dismissed the suit on preliminary objections and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issues

  1. Whether a challenge to a decision of the Minister under s.15 of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 is an ordinary suit or a judicial appeal, and whether the appellants therefore had an unrestricted right of appeal from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Civil Appeal No.36 of 1996, to which the appellants were not parties, operated as res judicata against them.
  3. Whether the suit disclosed a cause of action against the 2nd and 3rd respondents, who made no decision under the Act.
  4. Whether the appellants were aggrieved parties with a subsisting interest in the suit property at the time the Minister cancelled the repossession certificate.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Two-thirds of the costs of the appeal awarded to the respondents in the Supreme Court and in the two courts below.

Key headnotes

Statutory Interpretation — Expropriated Properties Act s.15 — Meaning of 'appeal' — Ordinary suit versus judicial appeal
A challenge to a decision of the Minister under section 15 of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982, read with Regulation 15 of SI 1983 No.6, is instituted as an ordinary civil suit and not as a judicial appeal; an appeal from its determination therefore lies as of right to the Supreme Court under s.6(1) of the Judicature Act.
Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Contested plea must be tried on evidence
Where res judicata is pleaded and contested, the court must try that issue and receive evidence establishing that the matter was litigated between the same parties or those claiming through them; it cannot be resolved on the pleadings and submissions of counsel alone.
Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Identity of parties under s.7 Civil Procedure Act
Res judicata under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act cannot bar a person who was neither a party to the former suit nor a party claiming through one; a stranger to the earlier proceedings is not bound by it as a matter of res judicata.
Land & Property — Judgment in rem — Status of property binds all the world
A judgment of a competent court determining the status of property is a judgment in rem conclusive against all the world, binding even strangers to the proceedings as to the status of, and title to, that property.
Land & Property — Expropriated Properties Act s.2 — Nullification of dealings in expropriated property
Section 2 of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 nullified all purchases, transfers, grants and dealings in expropriated property effected between 1973 and 21 February 1983, so the property remained vested in the Government notwithstanding any subsequent registration of title.
Civil Procedure — Cause of action — Joinder under s.15 of the Act
A challenge under s.15 of the Expropriated Properties Act discloses no cause of action against parties who made no decision under the Act and against whom no violated right is pleaded, and such parties are improperly joined.
Administrative Law — Aggrieved person — Locus standi under s.15
A person is 'aggrieved' under s.15 of the Expropriated Properties Act only where a legal right of theirs is directly affected by the decision; a person who had already parted with his interest in the property before the Minister's decision is not an aggrieved person entitled to challenge it.

Legislation cited (22)

  • Expropriated Properties Act 1982 (Act 9 of 1982) s.1(1)
  • Expropriated Properties Act 1982 (Act 9 of 1982) s.2
  • Expropriated Properties Act 1982 (Act 9 of 1982) s.9(1)(d)
  • Expropriated Properties Act 1982 (Act 9 of 1982) s.11
  • Expropriated Properties Act 1982 (Act 9 of 1982) s.14
  • Expropriated Properties Act 1982 (Act 9 of 1982) s.15
  • Judicature Act s.6(1)
  • Judicature Act s.39(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.132(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.137(5)(b)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.139(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126(2)(e)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.2
  • Civil Procedure Act s.7
  • Civil Procedure Act s.83
  • Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Proceedings) Act 1969 (Act 20 of 1969) s.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 rule 10(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 42 rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 9
  • Expropriated Properties (Repossession and Disposal) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983 No.6) reg.15
  • Departed Asians Property Decree 1973 (Decree No.27 of 1973)
  • Registration of Titles Act

Cases cited (17)

  • Habre International Co. Ltd v Ebrahim Arakhia Kassim & Others (Civil Application No. 14 of 1999)
  • Mohan Musisi Kiwanuka v Asha Chand (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2002)
  • Hem Singh v Mahant Basant [1936] 1 All ER 356 (PC)
  • Secretary of State for India v Chelikan Rama Rao (1916) LR 43 Ind App 192
  • Mityana Ginners Ltd v Public Health Officer, Kampala (1958) EA 339
  • National Telephone Co. v Postmaster General [1913] AC 546
  • United Assurance Co. Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1986)
  • Jeraj Sharriff v Store (1960) EA 374
  • Ismail Karshe v Uganda Transport Ltd (HCCS No. 553 of 1966)
  • Mohamed Allibhai v W.T. Bukenya and DAPC Board (Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1995)
  • Ladak A. Mohamed Hussein v Griffiths Kakiiza & 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1995)
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998)
  • Habre International Ltd v Francis Rutagarama (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1999)
  • Yahaya Kiriisa v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1994)
  • Famous Cycle Agencies Ltd & 4 Others v Mansukhlal Ramji Karia & 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1994)
  • Gokaldas Laximides Tanna v Sr. Rosemary Muyinza and DAPC Board (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1992)
  • Makerere Properties Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1996)
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.