Famous Cycle Agencies Ltd & 4 Ors v Mansukhulal Ramjikaria & 2 Ors (Civil Appeal 16 of 1994)

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 Supreme Court held that the trial judge properly refused the adjournment, the appellants having shown no sufficient cause and having engaged in delaying tactics. Although the 2nd respondent's withdrawal of its defence by mere letter rather than chamber summons contravened Order 22 rules 1(3) and 2, no miscarriage of justice resulted because the outcome would have been no different. The 1st respondent held an indefeasible registered title under sections 56 and 184 of the Registration of Titles Act and was the appellants' proper landlord. The appeal was dismissed save on ground eight: rent collected by the 3rd respondent was ordered passed on to the 1st respondent with interest.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed save on ground eight; rent received by the 3rd respondent ordered passed to the 1st respondent with interest at the court rate

Facts

The suit property was a commercial building on Plot 1-3 Market Street, Kampala, owned in 1950 by Makerere Properties Ltd (2nd respondent), whose shareholders were Ugandan citizens of Asian origin. Following the 1972 expulsion of Asians, the property was taken over and managed by the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (3rd respondent). The five appellants occupied the property as tenants. In 1982 the 1st respondent became the registered proprietor; on 2 April 1991 he obtained a repossession certificate and on 1 May 1991 entered tenancy agreements with the appellants. The 2nd and 3rd respondents then wrote disputing the 1st respondent's title and asserting the repossession would be cancelled. Uncertain whom to pay, the appellants stopped paying the 1st respondent and paid the 3rd respondent instead. Threatened with eviction, the appellants sued the three respondents to determine their rightful landlord, claiming no proprietary interest of their own.

Issues

1. Whether the trial judge wrongly exercised his discretion in refusing the appellants' application for an adjournment.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in allowing the 2nd respondent to withdraw its defence without a formal chamber summons application under Order 22.
3. Whether the trial judge erred in holding that the 1st respondent was the rightful registered proprietor and the appellants' landlord.
4. Whether the trial judge erred in failing to order that rent received by the 3rd respondent be passed on to the 1st respondent.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed except on ground eight, which is allowed.
• 1st respondent to have seven-eighths of the costs of the appeal and of the suit in the court below.
• Rent received by the 3rd respondent to be passed on to the 1st respondent with interest at the court rate.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 17 r.1(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 22 r.1(3)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 22 r.2
• Registration of Titles Act s.56
• Registration of Titles Act s.184
• Expropriated Properties Act 1982

Cases cited (3)

• Manubhai Jcatls...IDja]. Pa!e-r Y. Gotfried (195r) Zo, E;C A 81
• Nitin Jayant Madhvani v East African Holdings Ltd & Others (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1993)
• Lalji Nurdin Matovu v Ben Kiwanuka (Civil Application No. 12 of 1991)

Cases citing this judgment (7)

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.

• Masereka v Nyangoma & Anor (HCT-01-LD-CA-0048 OF 2016)
• Masereka v Nyangoma & Anor (HCT-01-LD-CA-0048 OF 2016)
• Mansukhlal Ramji Karia and Another v Attorney General and Others (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2002)
• Mansukhlal Ramji Karia and Anor v Attoreny General and Ors (Civil Appeal 20 of 2002)
• Nuru Kaaya v Crescent Transportation Ltd [2003] UGSC 13
• Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal 8 of 1998)
• Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank Of Uganda (Civil Appeal 8 of 1998)

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