Wakilii

Kampala Capital City Authority v TWED Property Development Limited (Miscellaneous Cause No. 61 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 364 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for summary warrant to recover property rates arrears
Decision
Summary warrant granted for reduced amount after offset applied

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 court held that KCCA's failure to publish a notice of rate under Section 25 of the Local Governments (Rating) Act rendered the demand voidable but not void. The Respondent's part payment and request for offset upheld the validity of the demand. The Respondent was entitled to offset UGX 108,756,140/= for road works against current rates, not expired 2009 rates. Summary warrant granted for the balance of UGX 43,033,835/=.

Outcome

Summary warrant granted for reduced amount after offset applied

Facts

KCCA applied for a summary warrant to recover UGX 151,789,975/= in property rates arrears from TWED Property Development Limited for property P117004940. In 2017, KCCA valued the property at UGX 357,321,030/= with an annual rate of UGX 21,439,261.80/= at 6%. The Respondent made one payment of UGX 21,439,261/= on 5 March 2019. The Respondent had previously undertaken road works on Nakasero lane at a cost of UGX 108,756,140/= with KCCA's approval and sought to offset this cost against rates. KCCA initially attempted to apply the offset against expired 2009-2016 rates rather than current rates. The Respondent challenged the validity of KCCA's demand on grounds that KCCA failed to publish a notice of rate under Section 25 of the Local Governments (Rating) Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to a summary warrant to recover UGX 151,789,975/=?
  2. Whether the Respondent is entitled to an offset of UGX 108,756,140/=?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Applicant is directed to offset against the liability of the Respondent the sum of UGX 108,756,140/=.
  • The Applicant is granted a summary warrant to recover UGX 43,033,835/= due to it in property rates from the Respondent in respect of property P117004940 located in Central Division, Nakasero II Parish, Lumumba Avenue.
  • Each party shall bear its costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Local Government Rating — Procedural Compliance — Notice of Rate — Mandatory vs Directory Provisions
The requirement under Section 25 of the Local Governments (Rating) Act to publish a notice of rate within seven days after making the rate is mandatory, not directory, and failure to comply renders the demand for rates voidable rather than void. Where a ratepayer makes part payment and requests an offset without challenging the validity of the demand, such conduct upholds the voidable demand.
Statutory Construction — Mandatory vs Directory Provisions — Legislative Intent
In determining whether a statutory provision is mandatory or directory, the court must ascertain legislative intent from the entire statute, its nature, object, and consequences of construing it either way. If deeming a provision directory renders another provision surplusage, the provision must be construed as mandatory, as no part of a statute is to be treated as nugatory.
Property Rates — Offset for Infrastructure Works — Limitation Period
Where a local government approves a ratepayer's infrastructure works and issues a certificate of completion as required by Regulation 16(3) of the Local Governments (Rating) Regulations, the ratepayer is entitled to offset the cost against current pending rates. A local government cannot apply such offset to expired rates beyond the six-year limitation period prescribed by Section 29(2) of the Local Governments (Rating) Act.
Property Rates — Recovery by Summary Warrant — Conditions Precedent
A local government is entitled to a summary warrant for recovery of unpaid property rates under Section 28 of the Local Governments (Rating) Act where the property has been valued, the valuation list published, a demand notice served, and the ratepayer has refused or neglected to pay after the prescribed period has elapsed.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (10)

  • Kampala Capital City Authority v Aya Investments (U) Ltd t/a Pearl of Africa (HCMA No. 10 of 2019)
  • Kampala Capital City Authority v Ham Enterprises (U) Ltd (HCMCA No. 13 of 2023)
  • Kampala Capital City Authority v Fuelex Uganda Limited (HCMC No. 62 of 2023)
  • Ochieng Peter Patrick v Adeya Stephen Bwire & Others (Election Petition Appeal No. 15 of 2002)
  • Kampala Associated Advocates v Katamba Ssemakula (HCMA No. 677 of 2021)
  • N.K. Chowdry v Uganda Electricity Board (SCCA No. 27 of 2010)
  • Abley Vs Dale 20 L.J.C.P (N.S) 233
  • Mwanje Stephen v Musoke Alex (Civil Revision No. 06 of 2024)
  • Pakistan Sugar Mills Association & Others Vs Federation of Pakistan & Others I.C.A No. 156 of 2020
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co. Ltd [1981] HCB 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kampala Capital City Authority v TWED Property Development Limited (Miscellaneous Cause No. 61 of 2023) [2025] UGCommC 364 (23 September 2025)
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.