Wakilii

Firdoshali Madatali Keshwani Habib and Another v The Departed Asian Property Custodian Board and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No.ll of 2019)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 326 · 2019 Judicial Review Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking orders of certiorari and prohibition challenging administrative decisions concerning property repossession
Decision
Judicial review application granted; respondents' decision quashed; applicants' repossession of property confirmed as lawful

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 certiorari quashing the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board's decision to allocate property comprised in FRV 60 Folio 5 Plot 42 Kampala Road to the third respondent. The court held that the decision was illegal, irrational, and procedurally improper because the applicants had already lawfully repossessed the property in 1992 through a consent judgment and ministerial certificate of repossession under the Expropriated Properties Act, and the Board acted without jurisdiction in attempting to re-allocate property that had already divested from government.

Outcome

Judicial review application granted; respondents' decision quashed; applicants' repossession of property confirmed as lawful

Facts

The applicants were registered proprietors of land comprised in FRV 60 Folio 5 Plot 42 Kampala Road. In 1991, they entered a consent judgment with the Attorney General recognizing their right to repossess the property. Following proper application, in October 1992 the Minister of State for Finance issued a certificate confirming they were free to repossess, and the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board notified occupants of the return of the property to the applicants. The applicants took possession and collected rent for 27 years without disturbance. In January 2018, the Board granted a temporary allocation of the same property to the third respondent Ssemanda Salim, who claimed to be a sitting tenant. In June 2018, the Board's Executive Secretary directed that the property be dealt with for private treaty arrangements. The applicants challenged these decisions by judicial review, contending the Board acted without jurisdiction since the property had already been lawfully repossessed in 1992.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants have any grounds for judicial review
  2. What remedies are available to the applicants

Orders

  • Order of certiorari granted quashing the decision of the 1st respondent to allocate Plot 42 Kampala Road FRV 60 Folio 5 to the 3rd respondent.
  • The allocation made by the Executive Secretary of the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board dated 28 June 2018 directing Mr Okello Augustine to deal with the suit property for private treaty arrangements is quashed.
  • No damages awarded.
  • Costs of this application awarded to the applicants against the 1st and 3rd respondents only.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Grounds for Review — Illegality, Irrationality, and Procedural Impropriety
For an applicant to succeed under judicial review, they must prove that the administrative decision was tainted by illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.
Expropriated Properties — Repossession Certificate — Effect of Ministerial Letter
A letter from the Minister responsible for finance authorizing an applicant to repossess expropriated property constitutes a valid certificate of repossession under the Expropriated Properties Act notwithstanding deviation from the prescribed form, where the substance is not affected and the Minister's intention to return the property is clear.
Expropriated Properties — Divestment from Government — Effect of Repossession
Under section 6(1) of the Expropriated Properties Act, once applicants are granted a repossession certificate, the property divests from government and reverts to the applicants, who become the legal owners from the date of the certificate.
Forms and Documents — Deviation from Prescribed Form — Interpretation Act
Under section 43 of the Interpretation Act, where a form is prescribed by an Act, an instrument or document purporting to be in such form shall not be void by reason of any deviation from that form which does not affect the substance or is not calculated to mislead.
Ultra Vires Actions — Decision Without Jurisdiction
Where a statutory body exercises power outside its jurisdiction or attempts to deal with property that has already divested from government, its actions are ultra vires, illegal, and void.
Natural Justice — Right to Fair Hearing — Procedural Impropriety
An administrative body commits procedural impropriety when it makes a decision affecting the property rights of an individual without affording that individual an opportunity to be heard and to state their case before the decision is taken.
Certiorari — Effect of Quashing Order
The effect of granting an order of certiorari is to establish that a decision is ultra vires and to retrospectively invalidate and deprive the decision of all legal effect since its inception.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (14)

  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 353 of 2005)
  • DOTT Services Ltd v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 125 of 2009)
  • Balondemu David v The Law Development Centre (Miscellaneous Cause No. 61 of 2016)
  • Commissioner of Land v Kunste Hotel Ltd [1995-1998] 1 EA (CAK)
  • Mabale Growers Tea Factory v Noorali Mohamed (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2015)
  • Jaffer Brothers Ltd v Mohammed Magid Bagalaliwo and 2 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 43 of 1997)
  • R v lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page [1993] AC 682
  • Council of Civil Service Union v. Minister for the Civil Service 1985 AC 374
  • Twinomuhangi vs Kabale District and others [2006] HCB130
  • R vs Aston University Senate ex p Roffey [1969] 2 QB 558
  • R vs Secretary of State for Health ex p Furneaux [1994] 2 All ER 652
  • Cocks vs Thanet District council [1983] 2 AC 286
  • Bendicto Musisi v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 622 of 1989)
  • Rosemary Nahvadda v Uganda Aids Commission (High Court Civil Suit No. 67 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Firdoshali Madatali Keshwani Habib and Another v The Departed Asian Property Custodian Board and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No.ll of 2019) [2019] UGHCCD 326 (21 June 2019)
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.