Wakilii

Balbinder Singh Gill v Kateregga Mark & Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Suit 31 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 233 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, permanent injunction, mesne profits and damages arising from trespass and unlawful allocation of repossessed property
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with orders for declaration of title, vacant possession, permanent injunction, mesne profits, general damages, interest and costs

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

The High Court held that the plaintiff, as holder of a valid certificate of title and whose late father had been issued a certificate of repossession in 1992 under the Expropriated Properties Act, was the lawful owner of Plot No. 26, Lubas Road, Jinja. The court found that the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board became functus officio upon issuing the repossession certificate and had no authority to allocate the property to the 1st defendant 22 years later. The allocation was declared void, arbitrary and unlawful. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff with orders for vacant possession, permanent injunction, mesne profits of UGX 150,000,000, general damages of UGX 50,000,000 and interest at 6% per annum.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with orders for declaration of title, vacant possession, permanent injunction, mesne profits, general damages, interest and costs

Facts

The plaintiff's late father, Indar Singh Gill, was granted a crown lease for 77 years on Plot No. 26, Lubas Road, Jinja in 1948. Following the expulsion of Asians in 1972, the property was vested in the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board. In 1992, the Minister of Finance issued a certificate of repossession to Indar Singh Gill. The plaintiff, as administrator of his father's estate, was registered as proprietor in November 2011 and thereafter took possession, appointed managers, entered tenancy agreements and paid property rates to Jinja Municipal Council. Despite the repossession and registration, the 2nd defendant temporarily allocated the property first to Lutaya Cissy and Mukembo Oliver in 2014, and subsequently to the 1st defendant, Kateregga Mark, in 2017. The plaintiff instituted this suit seeking declaration of title, vacant possession, permanent injunction, mesne profits and damages. Both defendants were served but did not appear or defend the suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the land comprised in Plot No. 26, Lubas Road, Jinja, LRV 236 Folio 6?
  2. Whether the suit property was validly repossessed?
  3. Whether the temporary allocation of the land to the 1st defendant was lawful?
  4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought?

Orders

  • The Plaintiff is the lawful proprietor of the land comprised in Plot No. 26, Lubas Road, Jinja, LRV 236 Folio 6.
  • The 2nd defendant's dealings in the suit property including the allocation of the suit property to the 1st defendant are void, arbitrary and unlawful.
  • The Plaintiff is entitled to quiet enjoyment of his property comprised in Plot No. 26, Lubas Road, Jinja, LRV 236 Folio 6.
  • The Defendants and/or their agents or persons claiming from them should hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff.
  • A permanent injunction is hereby granted restraining the Defendants whether by themselves or their agents, successors, assigns or persons claiming any interest from them from trespassing and/or in any way interfering with the Plaintiff's quiet enjoyment of land comprised in Plot No. 26, Lubas Road, Jinja, LRV 236 Folio 6.
  • The Defendants to jointly pay mesne profits to the Plaintiff from the date of trespass up to date totalling UGX 150,000,000 (one hundred and fifty million shillings).
  • General damages of UGX 50,000,000 (fifty million shillings) awarded.
  • Interest to the Plaintiff at 6% per annum on both the mesne profits and the general damages.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Title — Possession of certificate of title — Conclusive proof of ownership under Registration of Titles Act s.59
Possession of a certificate of title in one's name is conclusive proof of ownership of the respective land in accordance with Section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act, Cap 230.
Administrative Law — Expropriated Properties Act — Certificate of repossession — Effect and finality — Doctrine of functus officio
Under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982, once the Minister issues a certificate of repossession after satisfying himself of the merits of the application, it is deemed proof that all necessary verification has been undertaken and the Minister becomes functus officio, having no further authority to deal with that property.
Land & Property — Repossession — Expropriated Properties Act — Equitable and legal rights upon issuance of certificate
Upon issuance of a certificate of repossession under the Expropriated Properties Act, the former owner is clothed with an equitable right over the property pending transfer of the legal right by government, and once the transfer is effected, the former owner holds full legal title.
Administrative Law — Expropriated Properties Act — Allocation of repossessed property — Unlawful exercise of authority after functus officio
Where a certificate of repossession has been validly issued and legal title has been transferred to the former owner, the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board has no legal authority to allocate the property to another person, such allocation being void, arbitrary and unlawful.
Land & Property — Mesne profits — Recovery — Basis for award where defendants unlawfully allocated and interfered with plaintiff's property
Where defendants have unlawfully allocated property to a third party and interfered with the registered proprietor's quiet enjoyment, the proprietor is entitled to recover mesne profits for the period of wrongful deprivation of possession.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (7)

  • Ssebuliba v Cooperative Bank Ltd (1982) HCB 130
  • Lancester v Blackwell Colliery Co Ltd [1918] WC Rep 345
  • Prof Oloka Onyango & Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2014)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Mabale Growers Tea Factory v Noorali Mohammed & Chief Registrar of Titles (HCCS No. 65 of 2006)
  • Jaffer Brothers Ltd v Hajj Majid Bagalaliwo & 2 Others (SCCA No. 43 of 1997)
  • Manharlal Thakkar v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (HCMC No. 379 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Balbinder Singh Gill v Kateregga Mark & Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Suit 31 of 2020) [2023] UGHC 233 (24 November 2023)
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.