Wakilii

Kampala Land Board v Naranadas Ralhan (Africa) Ltd (civil Appeal No. 32 of 2005)

Court of Appeal · [2005] UGCA 90 · 2005 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from High Court decision granting relief against forfeiture of a lease
Decision
Appeal partly allowed on the ground of costs; relief against forfeiture in favour of respondent 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 32 of the Public Lands Act 1969 must be construed as an integrated whole and was saved in its entirety by section 59(8) of the Land Act 1998, so the High Court retained power to grant relief against forfeiture for breach of any covenant in a lease of public land. The trial judge properly exercised his discretion to grant relief against forfeiture. However, the trial judge erred in denying the appellant, the successful party on the issue of lawful re-entry, its costs of the suit without good cause. The appeal was partly allowed on the costs ground only, with each party bearing its own costs on appeal.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed on the ground of costs; relief against forfeiture in favour of respondent upheld.

Facts

The respondent company was registered proprietor of Plot No.9 Portal Avenue, Kampala, under a 99-year lease from 1 October 1925. The property was expropriated in 1972 but re-possessed in 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 re-entered and took possession, alleging breach of lease terms by the respondent, namely non-payment of ground rent since 1993 and abandonment of the property. 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 held the appellant had lawfully re-entered for non-payment and abandonment, but granted the respondent relief against forfeiture and ordered each party to bear its own costs. The appellant appealed against the orders on non-forfeiture and costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the whole of section 32 of the Public Lands Act 1969 was saved by section 59(8) of the Land Act 1998.
  2. Whether the trial judge erred in law and fact 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

  • Ground one fails.
  • Ground two fails; the trial judge did not err in granting relief against forfeiture.
  • Ground three succeeds; the appellant should have been awarded the costs of the suit.
  • Appeal partly allowed on ground three, with costs in the High Court.
  • Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Statutory Interpretation — Saving Provisions — Construing a Repealed Section as an Integrated Whole
Where a saving provision preserves the powers of a controlling authority under a repealed section, the section must be construed as an integrated whole, so that the safeguards and remedies contained in the rest of the section, including a lessee's right to apply for relief, are equally saved.
Land & Property — Leases of Public Land — Relief Against Forfeiture under Public Lands Act s.32(5)
Under the saved section 32 of the Public Lands Act 1969, the High Court has power to grant relief against forfeiture where a controlling authority re-enters a lease of public land for breach of any covenant, which is wider than the power under section 27 of the Judicature Act 1996 limited to non-payment of rent.
Land & Property — Relief Against Forfeiture — Equity Leans Against Forfeiture for Non-Payment of Rent
The proviso for re-entry on non-payment of rent is regarded in equity as merely security for rent, and provided the lessor can be restored to the same position, the lessee is entitled to relief against forfeiture on payment of arrears and any expenses incurred by the lessor.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Costs Follow the Event Unless There Is Good Cause
As a general rule costs follow the event and a successful party should not be deprived of costs except for good cause; an appellate court will interfere with a trial court's discretion on costs where it was exercised unjudiciously or without reasons constituting good cause.
Land & Property — Re-Entry — Ascertaining Fitness of Premises Through Landlord's Agent
It is not an error for a court to direct the inspection of leased premises by the engineer of the lessor's own land agent to determine their structural fitness, where that agent is responsible for such assessments and the arrangement serves the lessor's interest.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (7)

  • Erukana Kuwe vs. Vasrambai Damji Vader (2003) 1ER 117
  • Francis Butagira v Namukasa (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1989)
  • Jamnadas Mohamed vs. Twenthsche (1967) E.A. 28
  • Kishir Lila vs. De Angelis (1969) E.A. 6
  • Devrani Nunji Dulludi vs. Haridas Kahdas Duwarla (1949) 16 EA.C.A. 35
  • Donald Campbell vs. Pollak (1927) A.C. 732 at P. 813
  • Lugogo Coffee Co. vs. Sinso Combined Coffee Growers

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kampala Land Board v Naranadas Ralhan (Africa) Ltd (civil Appeal No. 32 of 2005) [2005] UGCA 90 (1 January 2005)
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.