Wakilii

Makerere Properties Limited v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 36 of 1996)

Court of Appeal · [1998] UGCA 40 · 1998 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from the High Court's affirmation of the Minister of Finance's refusal to issue a repossession certificate under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982
Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; matter remitted to the Minister of Finance to deal with repossession under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations steady — 16 citing cases on record, 6 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 allowed the appeal, holding that the suit property expropriated from the appellant company in 1972 was never lawfully returned to it. Any purported 1981 return to S.A. Pirani, a director acting without authority, and the subsequent transfer to M.R. Karia were both nullified by section 1(2)(a) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982, having occurred between 1973 and 21 February 1983. The trial judge misdirected herself by relying on a document never properly admitted in evidence and by failing to apply the Act. The matter was remitted to the Minister of Finance to be dealt with under the Act.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; matter remitted to the Minister of Finance to deal with repossession under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982

Facts

Makerere Properties Ltd, incorporated in 1959 with Asian directors, became registered proprietor of Plot 13 Market Street, Kampala in 1960. In 1972 the directors were expelled and the property fell under the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board. In 1982 one director, S.A. Pirani, returned, claimed the property, had it handed back, and sold it to M.R. Karia. In Company Cause No. 2 of 1992 the High Court held this transfer fraudulent and ordered rectification of company records. The appellant then applied to the Minister of Finance for a repossession certificate. By letter dated 10 April 1995 the Minister rejected the application on the ground that Government had already returned the property to the appellant in 1981 through the DAPCB. The appellant appealed to the High Court, which upheld the Minister, relying on Decree 27/73 and a document dated 30 September 1981 that was never properly admitted in evidence. The admitted facts showed no certificate of repossession had ever been issued to the appellant.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erred in relying on section 17(3) of Decree 27/73 and a document dated 30 September 1981 which had not been properly admitted in evidence.
  2. Whether the suit property had ever been returned to the appellant company.
  3. Whether any purported return of the property to S.A. Pirani was nullified by the Expropriated Properties Act 1982.
  4. Whether the trial judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence.
  5. Whether the Supreme Court decision in Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1994 was binding and conclusive on ownership of the suit property.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment and orders of the High Court dated 30 September 1995 set aside.
  • Judgment entered for the appellant.
  • Matter of repossession of the expropriated property to be dealt with by the Minister of Finance under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982.
  • Costs of the appeal and in the High Court awarded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Expropriated Properties — Nullification of Dealings under Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.1(2)(a)
Any purchase, transfer, grant or dealing of whatsoever kind in expropriated property effected between the vesting of such property in Government under the Assets of Departed Asians Decree 1973 and the commencement of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 on 21 February 1983 is nullified by section 1(2)(a) of that Act.
Expropriated Properties — Return Only Effective When Made to the Lawful Former Owner
A purported return of expropriated property to a person who is not the former owner, such as an individual director claiming without authority on behalf of the registered company owner, does not constitute a return to that owner; the property remains expropriated and vested in Government until dealt with by the Minister of Finance under the Act.
Documentary Evidence — Documents Not Properly Admitted Have No Evidential Value
A document appearing on the record without an exhibit number and with no indication of how it was tendered or received is not properly admitted in evidence and has no evidential value; a court errs in relying on such a document to make material findings.
Statutory Discretion — Power to Return Expropriated Property Vested Solely in the Minister
The power to return expropriated property by way of a repossession certificate lies solely and discretionarily with the Minister of Finance under section 4 of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982; a court hearing an appeal cannot itself order repossession or registration but may only direct the Minister to deal with the matter under the Act.
Right to Begin — Order XVI r.1 Where Defendant Admits Facts and Raises Points of Law
Where the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends in point of law or on additional facts that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought, the defendant has the right to begin submissions under Order XVI rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Effect of Judgments — Decision Not Binding on a Non-Party Who Withdrew
A decision in a suit between other parties concerning a different issue, decided solely under the Registration of Titles Act, does not affect or prejudice the rights of a person who was not a party and who had withdrawn from that suit.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (4)

  • Gokaldas Laximidas Tanna v Sr Rosemary Muyizza and DAPCB (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1992)
  • Famous Cycle Agencies Ltd and 4 others v Mansukhlal Ramji Karia and 2 others (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1994)
  • Amin Mohamed Abdulaziz Pirani v Mansukhlal Ramji Karia & 2 others (Company Cause No. 2 of 1992)
  • Civil Suit No ... of 1995 Mohamed Allibhai vs W.E. Bukenya Mukasa & DAPCA

Cases citing this judgment (16)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Makerere Properties Limited v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 36 of 1996) [1998] UGCA 40 (1 June 1998)
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.