Wakilii

Mukisa Foods Limited v National Enterprises Corporation (Civil Suit 746 of 1992)

High Court · [1996] UGHCLD 6 · 1996 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of property and damages for unlawful detention
Decision
Judgment for the Plaintiff. The Defendant to return the machinery or pay UGX 350 million in lieu thereof, plus general damages of UGX 10 million and costs.

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 held that the Defendant's occupation of the repossessed freehold property at Kawempe from 25 October 1992 until 10 December 1992 (following the Plaintiff's obtaining a Repossession Certificate on 1 April 1992) was unlawful and unconstitutional. The court applied a six-month notice period by analogy from Government policy for commercial premises. The removal of the Plaintiff's machinery by the Defendant on 10 December 1992 constituted detinue or conversion. The Defendant was ordered to return the machinery or pay UGX 350 million in lieu thereof, plus UGX 10 million in general damages.

Outcome

Judgment for the Plaintiff. The Defendant to return the machinery or pay UGX 350 million in lieu thereof, plus general damages of UGX 10 million and costs.

Facts

Mukisa Foods Ltd, a limited company originally owned by Ugandan Asians, operated a biscuit and sweets factory at Kawempe on land held by freehold title. Following the 1972 expulsion of Asians, the business was taken over by Government agencies and ultimately the Defendant (National Enterprises Corporation), who operated the factory and installed additional machinery. After repossession policy changes, the Plaintiff obtained a Repossession Certificate on 1 April 1992 and demanded vacant possession. The Defendant delayed vacating until 10 December 1992 and, despite a court injunction restraining disposal of machinery, removed all factory machinery (originally valued at UGX 950 million in 1972, later augmented by machinery worth UGX 800 million, and all valued at UGX 800 million in a 1989 survey) when it left the premises.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant, at any given time, unlawfully remained on the suit premises after the same had been repossessed by the plaintiff; and if it did, how long was the illegal stay?
  2. Whether the removal of the machinery from the suit premises by the Defendant on 10th December, 1992, amounted to detinue or conversion?

Orders

  • A declaration that the occupation of and refusal by the Defendant to yield up the property comprised in Freehold Register Volume 8, Folio 3, 4 and 5, Plot Numbers 124, 125 and 126 at Kawempe from the 25th of October, 1992, until 10th December, 1992, was unlawful and unconstitutional.
  • A declaration that the removal of the Plaintiff's machinery by the Defendant from the suit premises on the 10th of December, 1992, was unlawful and unconstitutional.
  • The Defendant should return the Plaintiff's machinery or pay the Plaintiff UGX 350,000,000 in lieu thereof.
  • The Defendant is ordered to pay the Plaintiff UGX 10,000,000 in general damages.
  • The Defendant shall pay the costs of this suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Repossession of Expropriated Property — Notice Period for Commercial Premises
A tenant of commercial premises which is the subject of repossession is entitled to a reasonable notice period to vacate, which by analogy to Government policy should ordinarily be six months for commercial property (a longer period than the ninety days prescribed for residential property under section 9 of the Expropriated Properties Act), given that commercial premises are in shorter supply and alternative premises are harder to secure.
Tort Law — Detinue and Conversion — Elements of the Cause of Action
In detinue, if the plaintiff is to succeed, he must show that he is entitled to immediate possession of the chattel and that the defendant detained the chattel after demand for its restoration had been made. To constitute conversion, the demand for the chattel must be unconditional and the demand must be specific (identifiable).
Tort Law — Conversion — Removal of Machinery Despite Court Injunction
Where a defendant removes machinery from premises despite the existence of a temporary injunction restraining disposal, and the plaintiff has established entitlement to immediate possession and made unconditional and specific demand for the machinery, the removal amounts to detinue or conversion.
Damages & Quantum — Mesne Profits — Basis of Assessment
The measure of mesne profits is based on the amount of rent if that rent represents the fair value of the premises. If the value is higher than the rent, then the mesne profits must be assessed at the higher value. Mesne profits are recoverable from a tenant who wrongfully held over after termination of the right to possession.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Expropriated Properties Act (Act 9 of 1982) s.9

Cases cited (6)

  • Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1993)
  • Sajna Singh v. Sardar Ali (1960) 1 ALL E.R. 269
  • Akisoferi Biteremo v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 659 of 1988)
  • Ruthworth v. Taylar (1842) 3 Q.B. 699
  • Heptalla Brothers Ltd. v. Janbhai Jeshangbhair [1957] E.A. 358
  • Eriasafu Kasuse v Uganda Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Civil Suit No. 755 of 1988)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mukisa Foods Limited v National Enterprises Corporation (Civil Suit 746 of 1992) [1996] UGHCLD 6 (29 May 1996)
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.