Kassani and Another v Kassam and Another (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2002)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that the power of attorney granted to the 1st respondent had been validly revoked in November 1994 and, in any event, never authorised her to transfer the appellants' property to third parties such as her father. Transfers effected during the pendency of the suit, without consideration and with knowledge of the revocation and dispute, amounted to fraud rendering them null and void. The trial judge erred in treating the property as partnership property, since a partnership cannot own registrable land under the Registration of Titles Act. The appeal was allowed, the transfers cancelled, and the appellants' interests restored.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; fraudulent transfers cancelled and appellants' interests restored; accounting referred to an independent accountant with matters remitted to the High Court for enforcement

Facts

The appellants and respondents were Ugandans of Asian origin descended from a common patriarch, expelled from Uganda in 1972 and forced to abandon properties at Plot No.3 De Winton Road and Plot No.51 Kampala Road, Kampala. Following the Expropriated Properties Act 1982, the owners appointed the 1st respondent by powers of attorney to repossess and manage the properties. A dispute arose over accounting for funds, and in November 1994 the 1st appellant published notice revoking the power of attorney in the New Vision, to which the 1st respondent responded. In February 1995 the appellants sued for retrieval and accounting. In August 1995, during the pendency of the suit and an adjournment, the 1st respondent caused transfers of the appellants' interests to her father, Sherali Kassam, without consideration. The appellants alleged fraudulent collusion. The respondents claimed authority under the power of attorney and a 1992 London family meeting; passport evidence showed the 1st appellant was not in London at the time.

Issues

1. Whether the transfers carried out by the 1st respondent on Plot No.51 Kampala Road and Plot No.3 De Winton Road in August 1995 in favour of her father were done fraudulently in collusion with him.
2. Whether the power of attorney granted to the 1st respondent was still valid in August 1995 and whether it authorised transfers to persons other than the appellants.
3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• The judgment, orders and decree of the High Court set aside.
• The transfers effected by the 1st respondent be cancelled.
• The interests of the appellants in the suit properties be restored as they were before 1995.
• The respondents to account for all income collected and receivable from the suit properties.
• An independent accountant be appointed as referee to ascertain amounts due to each party.
• Time to be given for evaluation and payment of the appellants' ascertained entitlement.
• The referee's award to be submitted to and enforced by the High Court.
• Possession of the suit premises be handed over to the parties according to their respective interests.
• Costs of the appeal and of the court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Expropriated Properties Act 1982
• Registration of Titles Act s.146
• Registration of Documents Act

Cases cited (1)

• Mohamed Kafero vs. J. Turyaevenda [1980] H.C.B. page 122

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.

• Kassam & Another v Kassam & Another (Civil Appeal 10 of 2006)

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