Wakilii

Kampala Land Board v Naradas Rataram Co. (Africa) Ltd (Civil Appeal No.32 of 2005)

Court of Appeal · [2006] UGCA 63 · 2006 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court judgment granting relief against forfeiture of a lease
Decision
Appeal partly allowed; appellant awarded costs of the High Court suit, relief against forfeiture upheld

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 of Appeal held that section 59(8) of the Land Act 1998 saved the whole of section 32 of the Public Lands Act 1969, including the lessee's right to seek relief against forfeiture, not merely the lessor's powers. The High Court therefore had power to grant relief against forfeiture for a lease of public land, and exercised its discretion judicially in doing so where the lessor could be adequately compensated. The court rejected grounds one and two. On costs, the court held the trial judge wrongly denied the successful appellant its costs of the suit without good cause, and allowed the appeal on that ground only.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed; appellant awarded costs of the High Court suit, relief against forfeiture upheld

Facts

The respondent company was the registered proprietor of Plot No. 9 Portal Avenue, Kampala, held under a 99-year lease from 1 October 1925. The property was expropriated by Government in 1972 and repossessed on 30 September 1992. After the Land Act 1998, the appellant Kampala Land Board became lessor in succession to Kampala City Council. On 17 September 2001 the appellant, through auctioneers, re-entered and took possession alleging breach of lease terms, namely non-payment of ground rent and abandonment of the property. The respondent had defaulted on ground rent since 1993 while paying city rates, and had initiated but failed to pursue renovation. The respondent sued in the High Court seeking a declaration that the lease had not been lawfully terminated or, alternatively, relief against forfeiture. The trial judge found the re-entry lawful but granted relief against forfeiture and ordered each party to bear its own costs. The appellant appealed against the non-forfeiture order and the costs order.

Issues

  1. Whether the whole of section 32 of the repealed Public Lands Act 1969 was saved by section 59(8) of the Land Act 1998.
  2. Whether the trial judge erred in granting the respondent relief against forfeiture.
  3. Whether the trial judge erred in declining to award the appellant the costs of the suit.

Orders

  • Appeal partly allowed on ground three (costs).
  • Appellant awarded the costs of the suit in the High Court.
  • Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Saving Provisions — Repealed Public Lands Act 1969 section 32 preserved by Land Act 1998 section 59(8)
Section 59(8) of the Land Act 1998 saves the whole of section 32 of the repealed Public Lands Act 1969, which must be construed as an integrated whole; Parliament did not intend to preserve the controlling authority's powers of re-entry while removing the safeguards, including the lessee's right to apply for relief against forfeiture.
Land & Property — Relief Against Forfeiture — Re-entry for non-payment of rent on lease of public land
Where land is leased by a public body controlling public land, section 32(5) of the Public Lands Act 1969 (as saved) confers on the High Court wide power to grant relief against forfeiture for breach of any covenant in a lease of public land, beyond the relief for non-payment of rent only available under section 27 of the Judicature Act 1996.
Land & Property — Relief Against Forfeiture — Equity and re-entry as security for rent
A proviso for re-entry on non-payment of rent is regarded in equity as merely security for rent, and a lessee is entitled to relief against forfeiture where the lessor can be restored to the same position as before through payment of rent and expenses; the law leans against forfeiture.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion and the rule that costs follow the event
Under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act costs follow the event and a successful party should not be deprived of costs except for good cause; an appellate court will interfere where the trial court exercised its discretion unjudiciously or gave no reason for denying costs to the successful party.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (7)

  • Erukana Kuwe vs. Vasrambai Damji Vader (2003) IER 117
  • Francis Butagira v Namukasa (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1989)
  • Lusogo Coffee Co. vs. Sineo Combined Coffee Growers (Supra)
  • Janmomohamed vs. Twenth sche 196 E.A. 28
  • Kiska Ltd vs. De Angelis (1969) E.A. 6
  • Devram Nanji Dalloni vs. Haridas Kahdas Dawads (1949) 16 E.A.C.A. 35
  • Donald Campbell v Pollak [1927] AC 732

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kampala Land Board v Naradas Rataram Co. (Africa) Ltd (Civil Appeal No.32 of 2005) [2006] UGCA 63 (22 March 2006)
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.