Wakilii

Lule v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2000)

Court of Appeal · [2001] UGCA 49 · 2001 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from the dismissal of a High Court suit for compensation for an expropriated property that was repossessed by former owners
Decision
Appeal partially allowed; judgment entered for the appellant in the sum of Ug.Shs.55,952,581 with prompt payment ordered

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 the acquisition of an expropriated property, later repossessed by former owners under the Expropriated Properties Act, amounted to compulsory acquisition for purposes specified in Article 26 of the 1995 Constitution, entitling the deprived purchaser to prompt, fair and adequate compensation. The trial judge erred in holding that payment would amount to unjust enrichment and in failing to enter judgment for the sum the respondent had admitted and offered. The court entered judgment for the appellant in the sum offered by the respondent and ordered prompt payment, leaving claims for renovation costs to be pursued separately in the High Court against former owners under section 11(2).

Outcome

Appeal partially allowed; judgment entered for the appellant in the sum of Ug.Shs.55,952,581 with prompt payment ordered

Facts

In 1975 the appellant purchased an expropriated property at Plot 19 Hanlon Road, Bugolobi, Kampala, from the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board for Ug.Shs.275,000, became registered proprietor and let it to tenants after spending Shs.400,000 on repairs. He went into exile from 1977 to 1983. On his return he undertook further renovations with Roko Construction, assigning rent to repay costs, and later carried out extensive renovations costing Shs.30,175,000. On 17 August 1993 the property was repossessed by the former owners under a certificate of repossession issued pursuant to the Expropriated Properties Act 1982. The appellant sought compensation for his nullified purchase. The Minister of Finance offered Shs.38,571,000 in 1996 and Shs.55,952,581 in 1999, both refused as inadequate. The High Court dismissed his suit, holding that compensation would amount to unjust enrichment because rent collected exceeded the value of a comparable property.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit property was lawfully purchased by the appellant.
  2. Whether the purchase was nullified by subsequent legislation.
  3. Whether the certificate of repossession was valid in light of Article 26 of the 1995 Constitution.
  4. Whether section 11 of the Expropriated Properties Act provides a formula for fair and adequate compensation to a deprived purchaser in accordance with the Constitution.
  5. Whether the Minister's offer of compensation was in accordance with the law on fair and adequate compensation.
  6. Whether the trial judge erred in holding that payment of compensation would amount to unjust enrichment and in failing to enter judgment on the admitted amount.

Orders

  • Appeal partially allowed.
  • The respondent to promptly pay the appellant the sum of Ug.Shs.55,952,581.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Expropriated Properties — Compensation to Deprived Purchaser — Mandatory Nature under Expropriated Properties Act s.11(3)
The payment of compensation under section 11(3) of the Expropriated Properties Act to a purchaser deprived of an expropriated property upon its repossession by the former owner is mandatory upon the person paying it, and is a statutory entitlement.
Compulsory Acquisition — Article 26 — Acquisition by Exercise of Statutory Power
The acquisition of an expropriated property achieved by the exercise of a statutory power to rectify wrongs done to former owners constitutes compulsory acquisition for purposes specified in Article 26 of the 1995 Constitution, including public morality, entitling the deprived person to prompt, fair and adequate compensation.
Admissions — Judgment on Admission under Order 11 r.6 CPR
Where a party admits liability for a sum, the court should invoke Order 11 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and enter judgment on the admission, proceeding to try only the unadmitted issues on their merits.
Compensation — Unjust Enrichment — Statutory Entitlement not Defeated by Rental Income
Where payment of compensation is a statutory requirement, a court errs in refusing it on the ground that it would amount to unjust enrichment because the claimant collected rent sufficient to buy comparable property; the statutory entitlement is not defeated by such income.
Renovation and Improvement Costs — Liability of Former Owner under Expropriated Properties Act s.11(2)
Section 11(2) of the Expropriated Properties Act and Regulation 8(1) of the 1983 Regulations require former owners, and impose a burden on Government, to pay compensation for improvements or renovations made by a deprived purchaser, which must be pursued by a separate suit proving liquidated amounts by ordinary rules of proof.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (3)

  • Pryarali Abdul Rasul Ismael v. Adrian Sibo
  • the Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute
  • Habre International Company Ltd v Ebrahim Alasaka Kassan and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1999)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lule v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2000) [2001] UGCA 49 (12 September 2001)
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.