Excellent Assorted Manufacturers Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority (HIGH COURT CIVIL SUIT NO. 165 OF 2015)
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 granted judgment on admission against UNRA for compulsory acquisition compensation, holding that UNRA's letter of 14 July 2014 and paragraph 10 of its Written Statement of Defence constituted a clear and unambiguous admission of liability to compensate the plaintiff for land and developments existing before the gazette date of 8 February 2013. The court held that judgment on admission could be entered without awaiting determination of other questions between the parties, but declined to award the specific quantum proposed by the Chief Government Valuer's report pending the ordered valuation process.
Outcome
Judgment on admission entered in favour of plaintiff; liability established but quantum to await valuation process ordered by court
Facts
Excellent Assorted Manufacturers Ltd, a soap and detergent manufacturing company, claimed that in 2012 it embarked on an expansion plan to develop a large-scale manufacturing facility. The company procured land in Busega, obtained a loan from the European Investment Bank, obtained architectural plans, and paid for motor vehicles. While procuring permits and equipment, the government gazette came out and UNRA compulsorily acquired the property pursuant to SI 7 of 2013 Land Acquisition for the Kampala Expressway Instrument dated 8 February 2013. On 17 June 2015, the plaintiff filed suit seeking compensation for compulsory acquisition, loss of business, general damages, interest, and costs. During case management, parties conducted evaluations and obtained a report from the Chief Government Valuer. UNRA had earlier written a letter dated 14 July 2014 undertaking to compensate the plaintiff for all property acquired including land and developments that existed before the land was gazetted. The plaintiff applied orally for judgment on admission based on UNRA's pleadings and the 14 July 2014 letter.
Issues
- Whether the defendant's pleadings and letter dated 14 July 2014 constituted a clear and unambiguous admission sufficient for entry of judgment on admission under Order 13 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Whether the court should enter judgment on admission for the specific quantum recommended by the Chief Government Valuer's report.
- Whether the defendant's plea of illegality and absence of developments before gazette date defeated the application for judgment on admission.
Orders
- Judgment on admission entered in favour of the plaintiff.
- The defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for land compulsorily taken over as admitted and the developments which were there before 8 February 2013.
- The defendant shall pay the plaintiff the costs of this application.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.13 r.6
Cases cited (3)
- Jane Ssenyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (High Court Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)
- Central Electrical International Ltd Vs Eastern Builders & Engineers Ltd MA
- John Peter Nazareth v Barclays Bank International Ltd [1976] EA 39
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.