Balbinder v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Suit 34 of 2012)

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.

Holding

The High Court held that the Minister of Finance's letter dated 16 April 1992 constituted a valid certificate of repossession under the Expropriated Properties Act, vesting ownership of the suit property in the plaintiff's deceased father. Once the Minister dealt with expropriated property by issuing repossession, he became functus officio and the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board had no authority to reallocate the property. The defendant's subsequent allocation to a third party was void and illegal. The plaintiff, as administrator of his father's estate and registered proprietor, is the lawful owner entitled to possession.

Outcome

Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant ordered to hand over vacant possession. Permanent injunction granted. General damages of UGX 100,000,000 awarded.

Facts

In 1973, Plot No. 2, Bell Avenue, Jinja, LRV 168 Folio 11 was registered in the name of Indar Singh Gill, the plaintiff's father. The property was expropriated under the Departed Asians regime and placed under management of the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board. Indar Singh Gill applied for repossession and on 1 April 1992 the Minister of Finance issued a letter authorizing repossession. Indar Singh Gill died testate on 3 December 1992. The plaintiff obtained probate in Kenya which was resealed in Uganda. The defendant notified occupants in April 1992 that it was no longer the landlord. The plaintiff managed the property through agents and collected rent. In March 2011, lawyers for one Amuge Muzei wrote to tenants claiming the defendant was still landlord and the property had been allocated to Muzei. The plaintiff brought suit seeking declarations of ownership and permanent injunction. The defendant did not appear or contest the claim.

Issues

1. Whether the suit land was repossessed by the plaintiff's deceased father under the Expropriated Properties Act.
2. Whether the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit property as legal representative of the deceased proprietor.
3. Whether the defendant had authority to allocate the repossessed property to a third party after the Minister of Finance issued a repossession certificate.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies prayed for including damages and permanent injunction.

Orders

• The plaintiff is the legal representative of the late Indar Singh Gill and the lawful owner and landlord of the suit property situate in LRV 168, Folio 11, Plot No. 2 Bell Avenue, Jinja.
• The defendant is not the landlord of the suit property and the plaintiff is entitled to quiet possession of the suit property as the lawful proprietor.
• The defendant should hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
• A permanent injunction is hereby issued restraining the defendant, her agents, servants or any person deriving authority from the defendant from claiming the suit property.
• General damages of UGX 100,000,000 (one hundred million shillings).
• Costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Expropriated Properties Act Cap 87 s.1(c)
• Expropriated Properties Act Cap 87 s.2
• Expropriated Properties Act Cap 87 s.3(2)
• Expropriated Properties Act Cap 87 s.4
• Expropriated Properties Act Cap 87 s.5(1)
• Interpretation Act s.43
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.27

Cases cited (14)

• Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
• Lancaster v Blackwell Colliery Co Ltd (1918) WC Rep 345
• Sebuliba v Cooperative Bank Ltd [1982] HCB 130
• Oloka Onyango & Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2014)
• Jaffer Brothers Ltd v Muhamed Magid Bagalaliwo & 2 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 43 of 1997)
• Attorney General v Lolem & Another (Civil Application No. 10 of 2010)
• Firdoshali Madatali Keshwani & Another v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 11 of 2019)
• Mabale Growers Tea Factory v Noorali Mohamed (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2015)
• Transroad Uganda Limited v Commissioner Land Registration (Civil Suit No. 621 of 2017)
• Mpungu & 4 Others v Ddamulira & 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 73 of 2018)
• Mohan Musisi Kiwanuka v Asha Chand (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2002)
• Suleiman Adrisi v Rashida Abdul Karim & Another (Civil Suit No. 8 of 2017)
• Aisu Godwin Isaac v Komuhendo Bertha Akiiki (Civil Suit No. 18 of 2014)
• Manharlal Thakkar v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 379 of 2019)

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.

• Angwella and Another v Akwaroi and 5 Others (Civil Appeal 72 of 2022)

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