Ladha Limited v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 64 of 2019)

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 held that the purported sale by the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board to the third defendant was unlawful, fraudulent, and void ab initio. Once the Board returned the property to Ladha Industries Limited in 1993, it divested itself of all rights and could not subsequently sell it. The court found the transfer and registration fraudulent, noting procedural irregularities including failure to publish notice in the Uganda Gazette as required by the Registration of Titles Act. All transactions were declared null and void.

Outcome

All transactions relating to the suit property declared fraudulent and null; 1st Defendant ordered to compensate plaintiff by paying market value of property as determined by valuer within one month

Facts

Ladha Industries Limited was registered proprietor of land comprised in FRV 78 Folio 8 Plot 51 Block 204 in Kawempe Industrial area since 1965. Following the 1972 expulsion of Asians from Uganda, the property fell under management of the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board under Decree No. 27 of 1973. In 1993, the Board informed the plaintiff that the property had not been expropriated and the directors should repossess it. The plaintiff resumed possession and liaised with existing occupants. In 2014, when the plaintiff sought to sell the property, it discovered the third defendant had subdivided and taken possession of it. Investigation revealed that in 2004, the Board purportedly sold the property to four persons including the third defendant, but the entire property was transferred to the third defendant alone. The transfer involved multiple procedural irregularities including failure to publish notice of special certificate of title in the Uganda Gazette as required by law.

Issues

1. Whether the 1st Defendant lawfully sold the suit land comprised in FRV 78 Folio 8 Plot 51 Block 204 at Kawempe to the 3rd Defendant.
2. Whether the 2nd and 3rd Defendants fraudulently transferred and/or registered the suit land into the names of the 3rd Defendant.
3. What remedies are available to the Plaintiff.

Orders

• Judgment entered for the plaintiff.
• Suit property declared to lawfully belong to the plaintiff.
• The 1st Defendant declared to have acted illegally in purporting to vest in itself property over which it had no jurisdiction.
• All purported transactions on the suit land by the 1st and 3rd Defendants declared fraudulent and a nullity.
• The 1st Defendant ordered to compensate the plaintiff by paying the market value of the suit property as determined by a Licensed Valuation Surveyor within one month from the date of judgment.
• General damages awarded to the plaintiff in the sum of UGX 50,000,000.
• Punitive damages awarded to the plaintiff in the sum of UGX 30,000,000.
• Costs of the suit granted to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Assets of the Departed Asians Decree No. 27 of 1973
• Expropriated Properties Act Cap 87
• Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.59
• Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.71
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 20

Cases cited (3)

• Jaffer Brothers Ltd v Magid Bagalaaliwo and 2 Others (CACA No. 43 of 1997)
• Firdoshali Madati Kashwani Habibu & Another virus The Departed Asians Property Custodian Board
• Fredrick J. K. Zaabwe v Orient Bank and 5 Others (SC Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)

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.

• Otim v Alupo (Taxation Appeal 3 of 2023)

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