Navinchandra v The Registered Trustees of Bible Society of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 0162 of 2012)
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 of Appeal dismissed the appeal against a High Court order requiring the appellant to refund USD 175,000 plus general damages. The Court held that the lease of repossessed expropriated property did not amount to a sale and was not prohibited by section 8 of the Expropriated Properties Act, since a lease retains a reversionary interest. The suit, filed in 1999 for a cause of action accruing in 1990, was not time barred under the twelve-year limitation period. The appellant, having acted as both director and advocate of the company that received the money, was accountable on the principle of money had and received, having failed to prove he remitted the sum. The monetary orders were fair and not disturbed.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment ordering refund of USD 175,000, general damages of UGX 50,000,000, interest and costs upheld
Facts
The appellant, a director, shareholder and advocate of Kakubhai Kalidas & Co Ltd, dealt with the respondent over property at Plot 10 Army Avenue, being Asian expropriated property recently repossessed. Because the law barred sale of such property until five years had passed, the parties executed a five-year lease from 1 April 1987 for USD 175,000, with an option to purchase later. The sale money was paid into the appellant's bank account, to be transferred to the company. After taking possession, the respondent was evicted by government because the External Security Organization wanted the building. It was agreed the appellant would refund the current value. Government paid compensation of UGX 421,935,750 to the appellant's company, but the respondent was never refunded. The respondent sued and the High Court found in its favour, ordering a refund of USD 175,000, general damages of UGX 50,000,000, interest and costs. The appellant appealed, arguing the transaction was an illegal sale, was statute barred, and that liability was wrongly apportioned to him personally.
Issues
- Whether the lease of the repossessed expropriated property amounted to an illegal sale contrary to section 8 of the Expropriated Properties Act.
- Whether the suit was statute barred under the Limitation Act.
- Whether the appellant, acting as an advocate who received money for a client, was accountable to the client and the payer.
- Whether the appellant was jointly and severally liable for the money had and received.
- Whether the trial judge erred in the orders as to damages and costs.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs here and in the court below.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
- Expropriated Properties Act s.8
- Limitation Act s.5
- Limitation Act s.18(1)
- Registration of Titles Act s.109
- Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.7
- Civil Procedure Rules O.15 r.5(1)
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.30(1)(a)
Cases cited (7)
- Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
- Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
- Makula International v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
- Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank [1990-1994] EA 117
- Okello-Okello v UNEB [1993] Vol. II KALR 133
- Robert Cousens v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
- Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.