Mukisa Foods Limited v East African Development Bank (Civil Suit 615 of 1992)
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 High Court held that the plaintiff company's properties were validly taken over by the Government under Idi Amin's expropriation decrees, as the owners had not complied with the declaration requirements. The loan from the defendant bank to the government-appointed management was validly authorized, notwithstanding procedural irregularities, given the abnormal political circumstances. The plaintiff's repossession of the properties was subject to existing encumbrances including the mortgage to the defendant bank, and the plaintiff should have consulted the Minister of Finance and the bank before filing suit. The suit was dismissed with costs to the defendant.
Outcome
Suit dismissed with plaintiff to bear costs
Facts
Mukisa Foods Limited was a company registered by Ugandan citizens of Asian extraction and owned freehold land in Kampala. In 1972, following Idi Amin's expulsion decree, the company's shareholders and directors left Uganda. The Uganda Development Corporation took over management of the company's properties, which were subsequently managed by the Ministry of Industry through an appointed Board of Directors until 1990 when the National Enterprises Corporation took over. During this period, the government-appointed management deposited the plaintiff's certificates of title with the defendant bank (East African Development Bank) as security for a loan used to purchase raw materials to rehabilitate the company. When the original owners repossessed the property under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982, they found the certificates encumbered with a caveat by the defendant bank. The plaintiff sought declarations that the expropriation and loan transactions were unauthorized and void, and sought to restrain the defendant from enforcing its mortgage.
Issues
- Whether the taking over of the plaintiff's company was authorised by Amin's decrees.
- Whether the loan from the defendant bank was authorised by the plaintiff company.
- What remedies or relief are available to the parties.
Orders
- The suit is dismissed.
- The plaintiff shall pay the costs of the suit to the defendant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Declaration of Assets (Non-Citizen Asians) Decree 27 of 1972
- Declaration of Assets (Non-Citizen Asians) Amendment Decree 5 of 1973
- Properties and Business Acquisition Decree 32 of 1972
- Decree 11 of 1975
- Assets of Departed Asians Decree 27 of 1973
- Expropriated Properties Act 9 of 1982 s.1(1)
- Expropriated Properties Act 9 of 1982 s.5(2)
- Companies Act Cap. 85 s.183(4)
- Registration of Titles Act s.51
Cases cited (2)
- Registered Trustees Institute v Departed Asian Property Custodian Board (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1993)
- Freeman and Lockyer (A Firm) v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd and Another [1964] 2 QB 480
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.