Wakilii

Daudi C. Manyindo v DAPCB & Anor (Civil Suit No. DR. MFP 18 90)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 16 · 1992 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit seeking declarations regarding property rights following departure of Asian lessees
Decision
Plaintiff's claim upheld; lease encumbrances ordered removed from title; plaintiff entitled to re-enter and possess the property

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 declared that property leased by a Ugandan citizen to departed Asian lessees did not vest in the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board under the Assets of Departed Asians Decree 1973. The indigenous landowner retained title and was entitled to re-enter the property following non-payment of rent after the 25-year prepaid period expired, breach of the agricultural use covenant, and abandonment of the premises by the lessees and subsequent allocatee.

Outcome

Plaintiff's claim upheld; lease encumbrances ordered removed from title; plaintiff entitled to re-enter and possess the property

Facts

The plaintiff's father, a Ugandan, leased freehold land (Burahya Block 31 plot 2) to two Asian-owned companies in 1964 for 99 years. The lessees prepaid rent for 25 years to November 1989 and were to use the land for agriculture (coffee, tea, sugarcane). Following the expulsion of Asians in 1972, the lessees left Uganda and abandoned the property. Under the Assets of Departed Asians Decree 1973, the Custodian Board purported to take over the lease and allocated the land to the second defendant in 1977. The property fell into severe disrepair: structures collapsed, machinery was removed, and agricultural activity ceased. The plaintiff succeeded his father in 1967 as registered proprietor. After the prepaid rent period expired in 1989 with no further rent paid, the plaintiff sought re-entry but was prevented by authorities who recognized the defendants' claim. He then filed suit seeking declarations that the lease never vested in the Custodian Board, that the allocation to the second defendant was unlawful, and that he was entitled to re-enter.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff was the registered proprietor of land registered in the freehold register Burahya Block 31 plot 2.
  2. Whether the land was leased to Jeraj & Sons Ltd and Karmal Rashid Ltd for 99 years from November 1964.
  3. Whether the rent for the first period of 25 years of the lease was paid.
  4. Whether the lessees abandoned the property.
  5. Whether under the 1973 Assets of Departed Asians Decree the property was taken over by the Government and allocated to the second defendant.
  6. Whether the lease between the plaintiff's father and the two companies was unconscionable.
  7. Whether the land was legally passed over to the first defendant and if not whether the plaintiff was entitled to exercise his right of re-entry.
  8. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to re-entry because of non-payment of rent, failure to use the land, and abandonment.
  9. Whether the plaintiff had rightly exercised his right of re-entry.

Orders

  • Declaration that the lease of the suit property never passed to the first defendant.
  • Declaration that the allocation of the suit property to the second defendant was unlawful and ineffectual.
  • Declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to re-entry.
  • Chief Registrar of Titles ordered to remove the lease encumbrances from the title to Burahya Freehold Register Block 31 Plot 2 land at Bulyambuzi and enter the same in the Register Books under Registration of Titles Act s.113.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Departed Asians Property — Vesting in Custodian Board — Property of Indigenous Ugandan Lessor
Property leased by an indigenous Ugandan citizen to departed Asian lessees does not vest in the Government or the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board under the Assets of Departed Asians Decree 1973 (Decree 27 of 1973), as the underlying freehold title belongs to a Ugandan and the Board has no interest and cannot be successor in title to pass legal title to any allocatee.
Certificate of Title — Conclusiveness of Registration
A certificate of title is conclusive evidence that the person named in it as proprietor is the registered owner unless the certificate was obtained by fraud, and in the absence of fraud the court cannot go beyond the fact of registration.
Lease — Right of Re-Entry — Non-Payment of Rent
Under Registration of Titles Act s.102, it is implied in every lease that if the lessor does not receive rent for a period of thirty days even without demanding the same, the lessor may re-enter upon and take possession of the leased property.
Lease — Breach of Covenant — Use of Land for Specified Purpose
Where a lease provides that land shall be used for agricultural purposes and that covenant has not been followed for an extended period, with the land falling into disrepair and agricultural activity ceasing, the lessor is entitled to exercise the right of re-entry for fundamental breach of contract.
Departed Asians Property Legislation — Scope of Application — Ugandan Citizen Lessors
The Declaration of Assets (Non Citizen Asians) Decree No 27 of 1972, Decree 29 of 1972, and the Assets of Departed Asians Decree 1973 do not apply to property where the lessor is a Ugandan citizen who had a lease agreement with Asian lessees before their exodus, as the Custodian Board was not party to the lease agreement and has no title to pass.
Expropriated Properties Act 1982 — Inapplicability to Non-Vested Property
The Expropriated Properties Act 1982 (Act 9 of 1982) does not affect properties belonging to an indigenous Ugandan which never vested in the Government and were never transferred to the Custodian Board, and certificates signed by the Minister under that Act purporting to return property to departed Asian lessees have no effect as regards the rights of the Ugandan lessor.
Lease — Abandonment of Property — Effect on Lessor's Rights
Where lessees abandon leased premises by leaving the country, allowing the property to fall into severe disrepair with agricultural activity ceasing, structures collapsing, and machinery removed, and a subsequent allocatee fails to maintain or rehabilitate the land, the lessor is entitled to re-enter and take possession.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (10)

  • Ndagire v Leo Kasujja [1974] HCB 134
  • Figuerido v Nanji [1962] EA 756
  • Okello v Uganda National Board (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1987)
  • Lutaya v Gandesha [1966] HCB 46
  • Ndaula v Mubiru & DAPC Board [1977] HCB 246
  • Diamond Trust Properties Ltd v Valley Grocers Ltd [1976] HCB 56
  • Evaristo Mugabi vs. Ag. H.C.C.S No.136 of 1984
  • Victor Namanyanja v DAPCB [1986] HCB 4
  • Jaferali & Another v Borrison & Another [1971] EA 165
  • Gandesha v Killing Coffee Estate Ltd & Another [1969] EA 299

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Daudi C. Manyindo v DAPCB & Anor (Civil Suit No. DR. MFP 18_90) [1992] UGHC 16 (21 January 1992)
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.