Hassan Ali Ahmed v Tororo Municipal Council and Another (Civil Suit 362 of 1987)
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
Held that although a municipal council's re-entry onto premises occupied by a licensee without reasonable notice was procedurally irregular, it did not void a subsequent lease to a third party holding a certificate of title under the Registration of Titles Act. The constitutional right to property under Article 13 requires compensation. The party who benefited from occupation of the premises is liable to compensate the dispossessed licensee for the value of the building, or alternatively to return the premises.
Outcome
Plaintiff awarded judgment against the second defendant with option for return of premises or compensation of UGX 13,500,000 plus interest. Claim against first defendant dismissed though irregularity found.
Facts
In 1968 the plaintiff applied to Tororo Municipal Council for a plot and was allocated plot No. 45 on Busia Road. He erected a 14-room semi-permanent house on the plot and paid annual ground rent of UGX 20. In 1979 during the war he fled to Kenya. On his return in 1986 he found the house occupied by others. The Municipal Council had re-entered the premises without notice in 1979 and in May 1985 granted a lease to the second defendant, who paid UGX 1,360,000 to one Samu Kabise (who claimed ownership) and took possession. The second defendant obtained a certificate of title and rented out the house, which had 15 rooms.
Issues
- Whether the re-entry by the first defendant to the suit premises was lawful.
- Whether or not the second defendant acquired good title from the first defendant.
- Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to the suit premises or compensation.
- If the plaintiff is entitled to compensation, from whom?
- What is the quantum of damages?
Orders
- Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff against the second defendant.
- The second defendant shall handover the premises comprised in plot No. 52 Busia Road, Tororo to the plaintiff.
- In the alternative, if the second defendant cannot handover the premises, he shall compensate the plaintiff UGX 13,500,000.
- If the second defendant chooses to compensate, he shall pay interest at 30% per annum from the date of judgment to date of payment in full.
- It is at the option of the second defendant whether to handover the premises or to compensate the plaintiff.
- If the second defendant opts to handover the premises, he shall surrender the certificate of title to the Registrar of Titles for cancellation.
- The second defendant shall pay the plaintiff the taxed costs of the suit.
- As regards the 1st defendant, though he acted irregularly, he is not liable to the plaintiff. The claim against him is dismissed, but he shall meet his own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Public Lands Act 1969 s.17
- Public Lands Act 1969 s.22(7)
- Public Lands Act 1969 s.22(9)
- Public Lands Act 1969 s.32
- Public Lands Act 1969 s.37
- Registration of Titles Act s.56
- Uganda Constitution art.13
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 17(1)(a)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 15 rule 4
Cases cited (1)
- Ronald Donato Kanyara v Hassan Ali Ahamed (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1990)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.