Wakilii

Chatur v Attorney General & Anor (Civil Suit No. 509 of 1992)

High Court · [1994] UGHC 32 · 1994 Counterclaim Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Counterclaim by 2nd Defendant against 1st Defendant after consent judgment entered for Plaintiff
Decision
Counterclaim dismissed; 2nd Defendant's compensation to be calculated using statutory formula in Expropriated Properties Act s.11(4)

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 Expropriated Properties Act 1982 applies to properties of Ugandan citizens of Asian extraction who left Uganda during the 1972 expulsion without adequate management arrangements, as such properties were vested in DAPCB. Compensation payable to a purchaser from DAPCB when property is returned to the former owner must be calculated according to the statutory formula in section 11(4) of the Act, despite its limitations in addressing inflation.

Outcome

Counterclaim dismissed; 2nd Defendant's compensation to be calculated using statutory formula in Expropriated Properties Act s.11(4)

Facts

The Plaintiff, a Ugandan citizen of Asian extraction, was the registered proprietor of a building on plot 9 Mbuya Road Bugolobi. He fled Uganda during the 1972 Asian expulsion without leaving management arrangements. The military regime appropriated the property and transferred it to DAPCB, which sold it to the 2nd Defendant for UGX 230,000. The 2nd Defendant was registered as proprietor. After the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 was passed allowing departed Asians to repossess their properties, the Plaintiff returned to Uganda and filed suit to recover the property. All parties agreed the sale from DAPCB to the 2nd Defendant was nullified by section 1(2)(a) of the Act. Consent judgment was entered returning the property to the Plaintiff. The 2nd Defendant counterclaimed against the 1st Defendant seeking compensation at current market value for the property.

Issues

  1. Whether the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 applies to a Ugandan citizen of Asian extraction who left Uganda during the 1972 Asian expulsion.
  2. What is the correct method for calculating compensation payable to a purchaser from DAPCB when property is returned to the former owner under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982.

Orders

  • Counterclaim dismissed.
  • Compensation to be calculated in accordance with section 11(4) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982.

Rules and key headnotes

Expropriated Properties Act 1982 — Application to Ugandan Citizens — Properties Abandoned by Departed Asians
The Expropriated Properties Act 1982 applies to properties of Ugandan citizens of Asian extraction who left Uganda leaving behind their properties without adequate arrangement for their proper and efficient management, as such properties were vested in DAPCB for management in the public interest.
Expropriated Properties Act 1982 — Nullification of DAPCB Sales — Effect of Section 1(2)(a)
A sale transaction between DAPCB and a purchaser in respect of property vested in DAPCB is nullified by section 1(2)(a) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 when the former owner seeks to repossess the property under the Act.
Expropriated Properties Act — Compensation to Purchaser — Method of Calculation
Where property purchased from DAPCB is returned to the former owner under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982, compensation payable to the purchaser must be calculated according to the statutory formula in section 11(4), notwithstanding that the formula does not adequately account for inflation and may not provide satisfactory compensation.
Government Compensation — Statutory Obligation under Expropriated Properties Act s.11(3)
Government is obliged under section 11(3) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 to compensate a person to whom property or business had been transferred for value where such property is returned to the former owner in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Legislation cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Chatur v Attorney General & Anor (Civil Suit No. 509 of 1992) [1994] UGHC 32 (21 October 1994)
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.