Captain Muhammed Omari v Attorney General (Civil Suit No.607 of 1995)
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 a valid contract existed between the plaintiff and the government for purchase of expropriated property after the plaintiff paid the token fee and received a certificate of purchase. The government misrepresented that it had good title to sell when the property had already been re-entered by the original lessor on court order. The plaintiff was entitled to damages representing the unencumbered market value of the property, general damages for breach and misrepresentation, mesne profits, and refund of the purchase price paid.
Outcome
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with substantial damages and mesne profits awarded
Facts
In 1977, the plaintiff purchased property from the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board and was registered as proprietor. The Expropriated Properties Act 1982 nullified all such sales but allowed claimants to lodge claims with the verification committee. In 1992, after the plaintiff's claim was approved, he paid UGX 50,000 as directed and received a certificate of purchase. The government instructed the Registrar of Titles to register the plaintiff as purchaser and advised government occupants to negotiate new tenancy with the plaintiff. However, the original lessor Francis Lubwa Luyimbazi had obtained a court order for re-entry against the Custodian Board for non-payment of rent, and the property was registered in Luyimbazi's name. The government failed to deliver vacant possession despite the plaintiff's demands.
Issues
- Whether there was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.
- Whether there was a misrepresentation by the defendant.
- Whether there was a breach of contract and if so are the remedies available to the aggrieved party.
Orders
- Plaintiff awarded the unencumbered open market value of the 22 years balance lease fixed at UGX 190,000,000.
- General damages for breach of contract including misrepresentation fixed at UGX 2,000,000.
- Plaintiff awarded mesne profits of UGX 650,000 per month per unit from 1 August 1992 until date of delivery of judgment.
- Plaintiff awarded refund of UGX 50,000 paid to the Bank of Uganda under Uganda Special Divestiture Revolving Fund.
- Plaintiff awarded interest on the decretal sum at court rates.
- Plaintiff awarded costs of the suit.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.