Blaine v Singing (Civil Application No. 15 2001)

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal against a ruling that dismissed the applicants' suit on preliminary objections. The court held that the applicants had raised serious issues of law and fact warranting judicial consideration, including questions on the interpretation of the Expropriated Properties Act, the requirement to plead occupancy in 1971, the computation of the 12-year period for bonafide occupancy under the Land Act, and constitutional provisions. The test for leave is whether there are serious issues meriting appellate consideration, not whether the appeal has merit.

Outcome

Leave to appeal granted; matter to proceed to full appeal

Facts

The applicants filed HCCS No.65/01 claiming they were owners and bonafide occupants of land that had been leased to the respondent hotel in 1971, when they or their predecessors occupied it without compensation. They sought declarations of ownership, injunctions, and damages. The respondent filed a written statement of defence denying the averments and raising preliminary objections based on interpretation of the Expropriated Properties Act, the repealed Public Lands Act, the Land Act, and the Land Transfer Act. The Principal Judge upheld the preliminary objections, holding that the plaint disclosed no cause of action and the applicants had no locus standi. The suit was dismissed with costs. The applicants' oral application for leave to appeal was rejected on 5 August 2001, prompting this written application for leave.

Issues

1. Whether the applicants have raised serious questions of law and fact warranting judicial consideration on appeal.
2. Whether it was necessary for the plaintiffs/applicants to file an affidavit with the plaint to show that they were occupants of the suit land in 1971.
3. Whether contrary to Order VI rule 16(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the plaintiffs failed to plead a material fact that they were on the suit land in 1971 and therefore qualified as bonafide occupants.
4. Whether the period 1971-1999 is available to the applicants for the purpose of calculating the period of 12 years necessary to constitute them as bonafide occupants of the suit land in terms of the Land Act.
5. Whether the Expropriated Properties Act affords the respondent a plea of disability in assessing the 12 year period of occupation under the Land Act.
6. Whether the applicants connived with various authorities to deprive the respondent of its land contrary to Article 26(2) of the Constitution.

Orders

• Application allowed.
• Leave to appeal granted.
• Costs of the application to abide the results of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I No. 13-1 r.40(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I No. 13-1 r.41(1)(a)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.VI r.16(2)
• Land Act
• Expropriated Properties Act
• Public Lands Act
• Land Transfer Act
• Constitution of Uganda art.26(2)

Cases cited (1)

• Sanyu Bay Estate v Dransar Bank Ltd [1997] HCA 17

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