Wakilii

Madat v Attorney General & Another (Civil Suit 309 of 1992)

High Court · [1994] UGHC 71 · 1994 Counter-claim Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Counter-claim by 2nd Defendant against 1st Defendant for compensation following consent judgment returning property to Plaintiff
Decision
Counter-claim dismissed with compensation to be calculated per statutory formula

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 Expropriated Properties Act 1982 applies to properties of Ugandan citizens of Asian extraction who departed Uganda leaving properties without adequate management arrangements, even where the former owner is a citizen. The method for calculating compensation to a purchaser under section 11(4) of the Act applies despite its shortcomings in accounting for inflation. Counter-claim dismissed as the statutory method must be followed.

Outcome

Counter-claim dismissed with compensation to be calculated per statutory formula

Facts

Plaintiff, a Ugandan citizen of Asian extraction, fled Uganda during the 1972 Asian expulsion. He was registered proprietor of property on Plot 9 Mbuya Road Bugolobi. The military regime appropriated the property and handed it to DAPCB for management. DAPCB sold the property to the 2nd Defendant for UGX 230,000, and the 2nd Defendant was registered as proprietor. After the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 was passed, Plaintiff returned to Uganda and sought to repossess his property. Plaintiff filed suit against the Attorney General and 2nd Defendant. All parties agreed the sale transaction was nullified by section 1(2)(a) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982, and a consent judgment was entered returning the property to Plaintiff. The 2nd Defendant counter-claimed against the 1st Defendant for compensation at current market value. The 1st Defendant admitted liability but disputed the method of calculation.

Issues

  1. Whether the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 applies to compensation claims by a purchaser when property is returned to a Ugandan citizen who was a departed Asian.
  2. What is the proper method for calculating compensation payable to a purchaser under section 11(4) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982.

Orders

  • Counter-claim dismissed.
  • Compensation to be calculated in accordance with section 11(4) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982.

Rules and key headnotes

Expropriated Properties — Application of Expropriated Properties Act to Ugandan Citizens
The Expropriated Properties Act 1982 applies to properties of Ugandan citizens of Asian extraction who departed Uganda during the 1972 expulsion and left properties without adequate management arrangements, which were then vested in DAPCB for management.
Compensation — Methodology for Calculating Compensation to Purchaser under Expropriated Properties Act
Where property transferred by DAPCB to a purchaser for value is returned to the former owner under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982, compensation to the purchaser must be calculated using the statutory method in section 11(4), notwithstanding that the method does not adequately account for inflation.
Expropriated Properties Act — Application Despite Citizenship of Former Owner
The citizenship status of the former owner (whether Ugandan citizen or not) does not exclude the operation of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 where the property was abandoned or left in circumstances necessitating government intervention for proper management.

Legislation cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Madat v Attorney General & Another (Civil Suit 309 of 1992) [1994] UGHC 71 (21 October 1994)
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.