Mabale Growers Tea Factory Ltd V Noorali (Civil Appeal 2 of 2015)

Supreme Court · [2018] UGSC 80 · 2018 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second appeal to the Supreme Court from a Court of Appeal decision affirming a High Court judgment in a land repossession dispute

Decision

Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal judgment upholding the respondent's repossession and the award of mesne profits affirmed

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 held that the ninety-day application period in section 4 of the Expropriated Properties Act is merely regulatory and not mandatory, so the Minister could validly issue the respondent a repossession certificate in 2006 once the earlier re-entry encumbrance had been cancelled and the property remained available; Mohan Kiwanuka was distinguished as turning on competing purchase and repossession certificates. A ground attacking the unregistered power of attorney could not be raised for the first time on second appeal because it emanated from no decision of the lower courts. The concurrent award of mesne profits, though not specifically pleaded, was upheld as both lower courts had properly explained its basis. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The late Abeli Balya owned freehold land known as Nyamasaga Estate and in 1965 leased about 150 acres to the respondent for 99 years. In 1972 the respondent, an Asian, was expelled from Uganda and the property vested in the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board. The respondent applied for repossession in 1996, but the Minister of Finance refused because a re-entry for non-payment of rent, noted in 1995 at the instance of Clovis Balya Winyi (the successor to Aberi Balya), had cancelled the lease. That re-entry was later cancelled by the Commissioner of Land Registration. In 2006 the respondent re-applied; the Minister granted a certificate of repossession and a special certificate of title issued. The respondent demanded vacant possession from the appellant, which had acquired the freehold from Clovis Balya. The appellant sued to cancel the certificates and for injunctive relief and damages; the High Court at Fort Portal dismissed the suit, allowed the respondent's counterclaim and awarded mesne profits. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, prompting this second appeal.

Issues

Whether, by the time the respondent obtained his repossession certificate in 2006, the Expropriated Properties Act was still operational, given that the ninety-day application period in section 4 had expired.
Whether the suit property was in fact available for repossession in 2006.
Whether a ground based on the alleged non-registration of a power of attorney could be raised for the first time on second appeal when it was not raised at the trial or in the Court of Appeal.
Whether the award of mesne profits was proper where the respondent had not specifically pleaded mesne profits in his counterclaim.

Orders

Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.
The judgment and decision of the Court of Appeal upheld.

Key headnotes

Expropriated Property — Repossession — Time Limit under Section 4 of the Expropriated Properties Act

The ninety-day period prescribed by section 4 of the Expropriated Properties Act within which a former owner may apply for repossession is merely regulatory and not mandatory, and its expiry does not divest the Minister of power to issue a repossession certificate where the property remains available for repossession or sale.

Expropriated Property — Character of Property — Availability for Repossession

Expropriated property retains its character as such until the Minister has dealt with it under the Act; a refusal to issue a repossession certificate is not a dealing that exhausts the Minister's power, and once an encumbrance such as a noted re-entry is cancelled the property again becomes available for the Minister to issue a repossession certificate.

Title — Successor in Title — Defective Predecessor Interest

A purchaser steps into the shoes of his predecessor in title and cannot obtain a better title than the predecessor held, taking the land with all its attributes, liabilities and fetters, including the consequences of an unlawful re-entry.

Appeals — Matters Not Raised in the Lower Courts

Grounds of appeal in the Supreme Court must emanate from the decisions and proceedings of the lower courts; a matter that was never raised and determined at the trial cannot be raised as a fresh matter for the first time on appeal.

Mesne Profits — Award for Wrongful Possession — Concurrent Findings

Mesne profits are damages awarded where a defendant has wrongfully withheld possession of land from the entitled owner; an appellate court will not disturb concurrent findings of two lower courts awarding mesne profits where both courts properly explained the basis for the award.

Legislation cited (6)

Expropriated Properties Act Cap 87 s.4
Expropriated Properties Act Cap 87 s.8
Expropriated Properties Act Cap 87 s.14
Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.2
Stamps Act Cap 342 s.19(v)
Public Land Act 1969

Cases cited (5)

Mohan Musisi Kiwanuka v Asha Chand (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2002)
Fang Min v Belex Tours and Travel Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2013)
NSSF v Alcon International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009)
Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga (1982) HCB 11
Elliot v Boynton [1924] 1 Ch 236

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.