Wakilii

Arua District Land Board & Anor v Bran Cheken (MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION No. 0007 OF 2016)

High Court · [2017] UGHCCD 16 · 2017 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside Chief Government Valuer's report and taxation certificate arising from breach of contract judgment
Decision
Valuation report and taxation certificate set aside; matter to proceed with fresh valuation process involving both parties

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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 where a Chief Government Valuer is appointed by court order to determine compensation quantum, the valuation process must comply with principles of natural justice — parties must be notified, afforded opportunity to make representations, and present during site inspection. A valuation conducted ex parte violates the constitutional right to fair hearing under Article 28(1) and will be set aside. Further, a Taxing Officer errs in principle by taxing costs not awarded in the decree. Application allowed; valuation report and taxation certificate set aside. Costs to respondent despite success, due to applicants' dilatory conduct triggering these proceedings.

Outcome

Valuation report and taxation certificate set aside; matter to proceed with fresh valuation process involving both parties

Facts

In December 2010, the respondent sued the applicants for breach of contract after they wrongfully re-allocated plot 2A Godown Road which they had leased to him. Judgment was delivered in July 2013 ordering the applicants to allocate an alternative plot within 90 days, failing which they must compensate the respondent at current market rate as determined by the Chief Government Valuer. The applicants took no action. In September 2014, the respondent's counsel initiated the valuation process. The Chief Government Valuer valued the plot at UGX 345,000,000 in February 2015 and issued a report. The respondent filed the report in March 2015 with a bill of costs which was taxed at UGX 4,100,000. The applicants then brought this application challenging the valuation procedure and the taxation on grounds that they were not involved in or notified of the valuation process and that no costs for valuation were awarded in the original decree.

Issues

  1. Whether the valuation report by the Chief Government Valuer should be set aside on procedural grounds where the parties were not given notice or opportunity to participate in the valuation process.
  2. Whether the taxation certificate awarding costs for procuring the valuation report should be set aside where the decree did not award such costs.

Orders

  • The report of the Chief Government Valuer dated 23rd February 2015 is expunged from the court record.
  • The certificate of taxation awarding Uganda shillings 4,100,000/= as costs for procuring the report of the Chief Government Valuer is set aside.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Natural Justice — Valuation Proceedings — Right to Participate
Where a court appoints the Chief Government Valuer to determine compensation quantum by order in its decree, the valuation process must comply with principles of natural justice. Both parties are entitled to be notified of the date of valuation, afforded opportunity to make representations to the valuer, and to be present during physical site inspection. A valuation conducted ex parte without notice to or participation by the parties violates the constitutional right to fair hearing under Article 28(1) of the Constitution and will be set aside.
Constitutional Law — Fair Hearing — Execution of Decree — Continuing Right
The constitutional right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 28(1) of the Constitution subsists until final execution of the decree. It guarantees the right of participation by both parties and to be heard at all stages of the proceedings, including post-judgment proceedings for the quantification of compensation. Nothing should get onto the court record in violation of any party's right to be heard.
Administrative Law — Quasi-Judicial Bodies — Chief Government Valuer — Duty to Act Judicially
Where the Chief Government Valuer is constituted by court order into a quasi-judicial body with power to determine questions affecting the rights of parties as to quantum of compensation, the valuer is obliged to act judicially and comply with principles of natural justice. The court will invoke its inherent jurisdiction to intervene where its appointed agent, though competent but with no particular procedure prescribed, acts in flagrant disregard or violation of principles of natural justice.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Interference with Taxing Officer — Principles
A judge will not interfere with a Taxing Officer's assessment of costs except in exceptional cases: where it is shown that the taxing officer applied a wrong principle (expressly or by inference from an award that is manifestly excessive or low), and the error substantially affected the quantum such that upholding the award would cause injustice. Questions solely of quantum are matters with which the Taxing Officer is particularly fitted to deal.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Costs Not Awarded in Decree
Taxation of bills of costs must be pursuant to an order of court awarding such costs. A Taxing Officer errs in principle when taxing costs that were not awarded by the judge who heard the suit. A certificate of taxation awarding costs not provided for in the decree will be set aside.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (S.C. Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • First American Bank of Kenya v Shah and Others [2002] 1 EA 64
  • Thomas James Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking [1961] EA 492

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Arua District Land Board & Anor v Bran Cheken (MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION No. 0007 OF 2016) [2017] UGHCCD 16 (2 March 2017)
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.