Administrator of the Estate of the late Habib Rhemu and 2 Others v Kiyingi and 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 575 of 2002)
Observed later treatment
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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
Held that the Memorandum of Sale dated 16 July 1971 upon which the counterclaimant claimed title was a forgery based on handwriting expert evidence and witness testimony. The counterclaimant and her husband did not lawfully acquire the property. The counter defendants failed to prove they were beneficiaries of the deceased registered proprietors, their NIRA records showing different parentage. Neither party having valid interest, the property was declared abandoned departed Asian property reverting to the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982.
Outcome
Both counterclaim and counter defendants' claim dismissed; property reverts to Departed Asians Property Custodian Board
Facts
Easter Kiyingi's husband Samuel Muleme claimed to have purchased land comprised in LRV 118 Folio 8, Plot 2 Fort Road, Old Kampala from three Asian proprietors via Memorandum of Sale dated 16 July 1971 before their expulsion in 1972. He paid balance to the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board in 1976, obtained transfer, and later transferred to his wife in 1977. Louis Bachu and two others claimed to be beneficiaries of the deceased former proprietors and sought restoration of the property. The original head suit had been struck out for lack of locus standi, leaving only the counterclaim. Forensic handwriting analysis conducted in 1996 and 2010 established that signatures on the 1971 Memorandum of Sale were forgeries. NIRA records showed the counter defendants were children of different fathers than the deceased proprietors they claimed as parents.
Issues
- Whether the counterclaimant and Mr. Muleme Samuel lawfully acquired the suit property.
- Whether the 1st, 2nd and 3rd counter defendants have any interest in the suit property.
- What remedies are available to the parties.
Orders
- The counterclaimant Easter Kiyingi and her husband Muleme Samuel acquired the suit property fraudulently and their claim is dismissed.
- The 1st, 2nd and 3rd counter defendants do not have any interest in the suit property and their claim is dismissed.
- The property is declared departed Asian abandoned property within the meaning of Section 2(2)(b) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1983 and Regulations 6 and 8 of the Expropriated Properties (Repossession and Disposal) Regulations S.I No. 87-8.
- The suit property reverts to Departed Asians Property Custodian Board for management under the Expropriation Laws and Regulations.
- The Deputy Registrar to immediately serve this judgment upon the Executive Director of Departed Asians Property Custodian Board for execution by way of demand for vacant possession or eviction.
- Each party to bear their own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
- Evidence Act s.101
- Evidence Act s.102
- Evidence Act s.103
- Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.2(2)(b)
- Expropriated Properties (Repossession and Disposal) Regulations 1983 (S.I No. 6 of 1983) reg.6
- Expropriated Properties (Repossession and Disposal) Regulations 1983 (S.I No. 6 of 1983) reg.8
Cases cited (3)
- George W Kakoma v Attorney General [2010] HCB Vol 1 78
- Davie v Edinburgh Magistrates (1953) SC 34
- Hilda Namusoke and 3 Others v Owalla's Home Investment Trust (EA) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2017)
Cases citing this judgment (1)
How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.