Ebrahim Alarakhia Kassam and 2 Others vs Salik (U) Ltd and 3 Others (Civil Appeal No 4 of 1997)

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 Court of Appeal held that the High Court has no original jurisdiction over claims for compensation for improvements made to property subject to the Expropriated Properties Act 1982. A claimant must first lodge the claim with the Verification Committee under regulation 8(1) and obtain the Minister's determination under section 12; only a person aggrieved by the Minister's decision may approach the High Court by way of appeal under section 14(1). The trial Judge erred in applying the ordinary rules of proof for liquidated claims and entertaining the suit at first instance. As the High Court lacked original jurisdiction, the trial was a nullity. The appeal was allowed and the respondents' suit dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; trial declared a nullity; respondents' suit dismissed with costs

Facts

The appellants were the original proprietors of Plots 51/2 Kampala Road. They left Uganda in 1972 as departed Asians, and the premises vested in the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board for management. The 1st and 2nd respondents became allocatees and occupied the premises until 1985 when they were allegedly gutted by fire. With the Board's permission, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents reconstructed the premises on plans approved by Kampala City Council. The 4th respondent later took over occupation. The appellants repossessed the premises in 1991 and served notice to vacate. The respondents instead sued in the High Court claiming Shs. 70,000,000 as their reconstruction costs. The appellants objected that the suit was premature for failure to comply with the Expropriated Properties Act 1982. The trial Judge entered judgment for the respondents, holding that ordinary rules of proof applied. The appellants appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the High Court has original jurisdiction to entertain a claim for compensation for improvements made to property to which the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 applies.
2. Whether a claimant must first submit a claim to the Verification Committee and approach the High Court only by way of appeal under section 14(1) of the EPA.
3. Whether the ordinary rules of proof applicable to liquidated claims apply to compensation claims under the EPA.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• Judgment and orders of the trial court set aside.
• Judgment substituted dismissing the respondents' suit.
• Costs to the appellants here and in the court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.11(2)
• Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.12
• Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.14(1)
• Expropriated Properties (Repossession and Disposal) Regulations 1983 reg.8(1)
• Expropriated Properties (Repossession and Disposal) Regulations 1983 reg.8(2)
• Properties and Business (Acquisition) Decree No. 11 of 1975 s.2
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.139(1)
• Judicature Statute No. 13 of 1996 s.16(10)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 5

Cases cited (1)

• Shaban Matovu v Sikindar Hussein Esmail and Others (HCCS No. 283 of 1992)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

• Attorney General and Justus Baizi v Tusingwire Kedress (Civil Appeal No. 117 of 2021)
• Modia Investiments (U) Limited v Sseremba and 4 Others (Civil Suit 68 of 2011)
• Habre International Co. Limited v Kassam & Others (Civil Appeal 4 of 1999)

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