Wakilii

Mabale Growers Tea Factory Limited v Noorali Muhammed,Registrar of titles (Civil Suit No.65 of 2006)

High Court · [2009] UGHC 111 · 2009 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit seeking cancellation of certificate of repossession and leasehold title, with defendant counterclaiming for damages
Decision
Plaintiff's suit dismissed; defendant awarded mesne profits and entitled to vacant possession of the suit property

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

Held that the re-entry onto expropriated property by the lessor was unlawful under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982, which vested the property in Government until the Minister dealt with it in accordance with the Act. The lessor had no right to re-enter or dispose of the leasehold interest before the Minister issued a certificate of repossession to the former owner. The plaintiff inherited the freehold title encumbered by the leasehold interest, which was lawfully reinstated following the Minister's issuance of a certificate of repossession to the defendant. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs, and the defendant's counterclaim for mesne profits was allowed.

Outcome

Plaintiff's suit dismissed; defendant awarded mesne profits and entitled to vacant possession of the suit property

Facts

The plaintiff purchased freehold title to land known as Nyamasoga Estate from Clovis Balya Winyi in 1997. The land was subject to a 99-year lease granted to the defendant in 1965. The defendant, of Asian extraction, was expelled from Uganda in 1972 and his property was expropriated and vested in Government under the Assets of Departed Asians Act. The property was managed by the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board. In 1995, Clovis Balya Winyi purported to re-enter the property for alleged non-payment of rent and had this re-entry noted in the register of titles. Negotiations between Winyi and the defendant for purchase of the freehold failed. The plaintiff purchased the freehold from Winyi in 1997, believing it to be unencumbered. In 2006, the Minister of Finance issued a certificate of repossession to the defendant under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982. The Registrar of Titles then reinstated the defendant's leasehold title as an encumbrance on the plaintiff's freehold title. The plaintiff sued seeking cancellation of the certificate of repossession and the leasehold title. The defendant counterclaimed for damages for loss of earnings and trespass.

Issues

  1. Whether the re-entry by Clovis Balya Winyi onto the suit property was lawful.
  2. Whether the sale of the suit property by Clovis Balya Winyi to the Plaintiff was lawful.
  3. Whether the 1st Defendant committed any fraud.
  4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies prayed for.
  5. Whether the Defendant is entitled to the remedies in the counterclaim.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed with costs to the Defendant.
  • Defendant entitled to vacant possession of the suit property.
  • Defendant awarded UGX 48,000,000 per annum in mesne profits from 16th March 2006 to date of taking vacant possession.
  • As at date of judgment, Defendant entitled to UGX 160,000,000 as damages in mesne profits.
  • Award of general damages and costs to attract interest at Court rate from date of judgment.
  • Costs of the suit and of the counterclaim awarded to the Defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Expropriated Properties — Operation of Expropriated Properties Act 1982 — Effect on Leasehold Interests
Under section 2(2)(b) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982, where expropriated property was held under a lease at the time of expropriation, the lease is deemed to continue in force until the Minister has dealt with the property in accordance with the Act, notwithstanding any expiry or termination that may have occurred.
Expropriated Properties — Re-entry onto Expropriated Property — Nullification under Section 2(2)(a)
Any dealing in expropriated property, including re-entry by a lessor for non-payment of rent, is prohibited and nullified under section 2(2)(a) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 if effected after the Act came into force and before the Minister has dealt with the property in accordance with the Act. The property remains vested in Government and managed by the Custodian Board during this period.
Expropriated Properties — Priority of Statutory Regime over General Land Law
The Expropriated Properties Act 1982 overrides any written law governing the conferring of title to land and the passing or transfer of title. Where property is subject to the Act, the statutory regime takes precedence over the general provisions of the Registration of Titles Act and lease covenants until the Minister has dealt with the property.
Remedial Statutes — Liberal Interpretation — Expropriated Properties Act
The Expropriated Properties Act 1982 is a remedial statute enacted to redress the wrongs of expropriation and return property to former owners. As such, it should be given a liberal interpretation in light of the mischief it was designed to remedy, namely the expropriation of property under the military regime.
Due Diligence — Duty to Inquire Beyond Register — Expropriated Property
Where a purchaser of freehold land has knowledge that the property was previously leased to a departed Asian and was vested in Government, the purchaser is put on notice to verify with the Custodian Board or Ministry of Finance whether the property remains subject to the Expropriated Properties Act. Reliance on the register of titles alone, without inquiry to the relevant statutory authorities, does not constitute adequate due diligence.
Mesne Profits — Award to Lessor Where Re-entry Unlawful — Equitable Considerations
Where a lessee obtains a certificate of repossession of expropriated property but the lessor remains in wrongful occupation, the lessee is entitled to mesne profits from the date of the certificate of repossession. However, equity requires the court to take cognizance of improvements made by the lessor during the period of occupation, and to reduce the award accordingly where the lessee will take possession of property whose value has been greatly enhanced.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (14)

  • Gokaldas Laximidas Tanna v Sr. Rosemary Munyinza & Departed Asian Property Custodian Board (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1992)
  • Victoria Tea Estates v James Bemba (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1996)
  • Noordin Charnia Walji v Drake Semakula (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1995)
  • Habre International Co. Ltd. v Ebrahim Alarakia Kassam & Ors (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1999)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd. v Damanico (U) Ltd. (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v The Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1993)
  • Bank of Uganda v Fred William Masaba & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1998)
  • Central London Property Trust Ltd. vs. High Trees Ltd., [1947] KB. 130
  • Nurdin Bandali vs. Combank Tanganyika Ltd. [1963] E.A. 303
  • Century Automobile vs. Hutchings Biemen Ltd. (1965) E.A. 304
  • Kabenge v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1977)
  • James Sowoabiri & Anor v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1990)
  • Dapueto vs. Wylie, The Pievo Superiore (1874) C.R. 5P.C 482
  • Cartside vs. I.R.C. (1968) A.C. 553, 612

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mabale Growers Tea Factory Limited v Noorali Muhammed,Registrar of titles (Civil Suit No.65 of 2006) [2009] UGHC 111 (30 July 2009)
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.