Wakilii

Habre International Co. Limited v Kassam & Others (Civil Appeal 4 of 1999)

Supreme Court · [1999] UGSC 31 · 1999 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal's reversal of a High Court civil judgment for compensation.
Decision
Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal decision set aside and the High Court judgment (Shs 70,000,000 with interest at court rate) restored, with costs to the appellant.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.
Judicial journey

Appeal & case history

2 linked decisions

Follow this matter from the decision below through each appellate court.

Reversed The decision below was overturned.
See the court’s words
“of Appeal is set aside and that of the High court”
Supreme Court This decision
Habre International Co. Limited v Kassam & Others (Civil Appeal 4 of 1999) [1999] UGSC 31 (27 July 1999)
[1999] UGSC 31
Supreme Court decision located in the Wakilii corpus. Linked from court records and operative language in the judgments.

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 Court of Appeal erred in holding the High Court lacked original jurisdiction over a claim for compensation for improvements to repossessed expropriated property. Article 139(1) of the Constitution vests unlimited original jurisdiction in the High Court, which section 14(1) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 (an appeal from the Minister's administrative decision) does not oust. Regulation 8(1)'s 90-day lodgement requirement applied only to claims arising within 90 days of commencement; as the cause of action accrued on repossession about ten years later, the claimant could sue directly in the High Court. The respondents' grounds for affirming, which required re-evaluating the evidence, needed a cross-appeal and were misconceived. Appeal allowed; High Court judgment restored.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal decision set aside and the High Court judgment (Shs 70,000,000 with interest at court rate) restored, with costs to the appellant.

Facts

The appellant company had been allocated premises after Asians were expelled from Uganda in 1972. The premises were destroyed by fire in 1985, after which the Departed Asians Custodian Board permitted reconstruction; the appellant rebuilt with plans approved by the city council and occupied the premises. By letter of 5 January 1992 the respondents, as former owners, gave 90 days' notice to quit, having repossessed the property under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 (repossession having been granted on 28 November 1991). The appellant demanded Shs 70,000,000 as compensation for the improvements; the respondents offered Shs 10,000,000, which was rejected. The appellant then sued in the High Court for compensation. The High Court found for the appellant and awarded Shs 70,000,000 with interest at court rate. The Court of Appeal allowed the respondents' appeal, holding that the High Court had no original jurisdiction and that the trial was a nullity. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

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, or only appellate jurisdiction under section 14(1) of that Act.
  2. Whether regulation 8(1) of SI No. 6 of 1983 required the appellant to lodge its compensation claim with the Verification Committee within 90 days of the Act's commencement, where the cause of action accrued on repossession years later.
  3. Whether the Supreme Court could affirm the Court of Appeal's decision on the additional grounds that the appellant had not proved its case, in the absence of a cross-appeal.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment and orders of the Court of Appeal set aside.
  • Judgment of the High Court restored.
  • Respondents' grounds for affirming the decision on other grounds dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal and in the courts below awarded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction — High Court — Unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 139(1) of the Constitution
The unlimited original jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by Article 139(1) of the Constitution is subject only to the Constitution itself and cannot be substituted, varied or modified by ordinary legislation; a statutory right of appeal to the High Court does not oust or replace that original jurisdiction.
Expropriated Properties Act 1982 — Section 14(1) — Nature of the appeal from the Minister
The appeal to the High Court provided under section 14(1) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 against a decision of the Minister is an appeal from an administrative, not a judicial, decision and does not deprive the High Court of original jurisdiction over a claim for compensation for improvements.
Expropriated property — Compensation for improvements — Regulation 8(1) ninety-day lodgement period
The 90-day period under regulation 8(1) of the Expropriated Properties (Repossession and Disposal) Regulations 1983 for lodging claims with the Verification Committee applies only to claims arising within 90 days of the Act's commencement; a claim for compensation for improvements whose cause of action accrues on a later repossession may be brought directly in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Expropriated property — Section 11(2) — Liability of former owner for improvements
Under section 11(2) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 a former owner to whom property is returned is liable to pay the person who effected them the value of any improvements made to the property, and that value may be proved in the High Court applying the ordinary rules of proof applicable to liquidated civil claims.
Appeals — Affirming a decision on other grounds — Need for a cross-appeal
A respondent may support a decision on grounds other than those relied on by the lower court only where there is a finding made, or evidence accepted, by that court capable of supporting the decision; grounds requiring the appellate court to re-evaluate the evidence and reach a different conclusion must be raised by way of cross-appeal.
Cross-examination — Inference from unchallenged evidence-in-chief
Where a party declines to challenge the essential and material evidence of an opponent in cross-examination, the court may infer that the evidence is accepted, subject to its being assailed as inherently incredible.
Codifying statutes — Adding words to a statute
A court must not construe a statute by adding words that are neither found in nor derivable from its language; but the principle restricting recourse beyond a codifying enactment does not apply where the claim cannot be dealt with under that enactment at all.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (6)

  • Bank of England v Vagliano Brothers (1891) AC 107
  • Shaban Maloyu v Sikindar Hussein Esmail & Others (HC Civil Suit No. 283 of 1992)
  • Shell (U) Ltd v Apio (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1995)
  • Kabense v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1977)
  • James Sawoabiri & Another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1990)
  • John Mubiru v Utondo (1971) ULR 4

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Habre International Co. Limited v Kassam & Others (Civil Appeal 4 of 1999) [1999] UGSC 31 (27 July 1999)
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.