Wakilii

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

High Court · [1996] UGHC 93 · 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, return of machinery and mesne profits following repossession
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with declarations of unlawful occupation and conversion, and orders for payment of damages 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 a six-month notice period is reasonable for vacating commercial premises following issuance of a repossession certificate. The Defendant's occupation from 25th October 1992 to 10th December 1992 (after expiry of the six-month notice from 24th April 1992) was unlawful. The Defendant's removal of machinery on 10th December 1992 constituted unlawful detinue or conversion. The court awarded UGX 350 million as the value of the machinery and UGX 10 million in general damages.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with declarations of unlawful occupation and conversion, and orders for payment of damages and costs

Facts

Mukisa Foods Ltd was a biscuit and sweets manufacturing company owned by Asian shareholders. Following the 1972 expulsion of Asians by Idi Amin, the plaintiff's directors left Uganda but the company remained operational under successive government tenants including Uganda Development Corporation and finally National Enterprises Corporation. The plaintiff obtained a Repossession Certificate on 1st April 1992 for its property at Kawempe (Freehold Register Volume 8, Folios 3, 4 and 5, Plots 124-126). The plaintiff notified the Defendant and requested vacant possession. The Defendant eventually vacated on 10th December 1992 but removed substantially all the machinery from the premises despite a temporary injunction restraining such removal. The machinery included original equipment valued at UGX 950 million in 1972 and additional machinery installed by subsequent government tenants around 1980 valued at UGX 800 million. A 1989 valuation by M/S Mungati and Drako Surveyors placed the machinery's value at UGX 800 million. The Defendant was served with court process but did not enter appearance or file a defence.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant unlawfully remained on the suit premises after the same had been repossessed by the plaintiff, and if so, for how long was the illegal stay.
  2. Whether the removal of machinery from the suit premises by the Defendant on 10th December 1992 amounted to detinue or conversion.

Orders

  • 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 25th October 1992 until 10th December 1992 was unlawful and unconstitutional.
  • Declaration that the removal of the plaintiff's machinery by the Defendant from the suit premises on 10th December 1992 was unlawful and unconstitutional.
  • The Defendant ordered to return the plaintiff's machinery or pay UGX 350,000,000 in lieu thereof.
  • The Defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff UGX 10,000,000 in general damages.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Repossession of commercial property — reasonable notice period to vacate
Where a Repossession Certificate is issued under the Expropriated Properties Act in respect of commercial premises, the tenant is entitled to a reasonable period of notice to vacate. While section 9 of the Act provides for not less than ninety days for residential property, a tenant of commercial premises requires a longer period due to shorter supply of such premises. Six months is a reasonable notice period for vacating repossessed commercial premises.
Detinue and conversion — elements to establish wrongful detention of chattels
To succeed in detinue, the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to immediate possession of the chattel and that the defendant detained the chattel after demand for its restoration was made. For conversion, the demand must be unconditional and specific (identifiable).
Valuation of machinery — acceptance of oral evidence where documentary evidence removed by defendant
Where a defendant has removed documentary evidence relating to valuation of machinery, the court may accept the oral testimony of a witness who had served in positions of financial responsibility if the witness demonstrates fluency and firmness indicating knowledge of the subject matter.
Mesne profits — requirement of evidence establishing fair rental value
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 mesne profits must be assessed at the higher value. Where a plaintiff fails to establish the basis for the claimed monthly rental value and how it compares with the fair value of the premises, the court cannot award mesne profits.

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 at P.362
  • 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 Ltd v National Enterprises Corporation (Civil Suit 746 of 1992) [1996] UGHC 93 (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.