Ojede v Lutalo and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 074 of 2007)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The court held that where a lease on land expires, the property reverts to the controlling authority (District Land Board) which is not obliged to offer it to the previous leaseholder. The District Land Board acted properly in allocating the expired leasehold to the first defendant who was vigilant, made proper inquiries, and applied timeously. No fraud was established against the defendants. The plaintiff's claim failed because his lease expired in 2003 and he did not follow proper procedures to renew it despite being advised by the Commissioner for Land Registration in 1997 to apply to the District Land Board.

Outcome

Suit dismissed with costs to the First Defendant; First Defendant's certificate of title upheld as conclusive evidence of ownership

Facts

The plaintiff, as administrator of his late father's estate, claimed half share in Plot 5 Bazaar Road (later Obote Avenue), Lira, being Part B of the property. His father had acquired half interest from Manihai S. Patel Limited in 1971, the other half being owned by Dahyabhai Morarji and S. Patel Limited. The original lease expired in 1973. In December 1994, the Ministry issued a Certificate Authorizing Repossession to the plaintiff's family. In 1997, the plaintiff's family applied to the Commissioner for Land Registration for a special certificate of title, but the application was rejected because the lease had expired in 1973 and the automatic two-year extension under the Expropriated Properties Act had also expired. The Commissioner advised them to apply for letters of administration and then apply to Lira District Land Board for allocation of the whole plot. Meanwhile, the first defendant, who had been a tenant of the Custodian Board since 1990, made inquiries about the property status when part of the building began collapsing. She applied to Lira District Land Board in February 2005 and was granted a lease offer in September 2005. The plaintiff withdrew his suit against the third defendant (Registrar of Titles) in 2008.

Issues

1. Whether the suit property was subjected to the provisions of the Expropriated Properties Act.
2. Whether or not the 2nd Defendant acted correctly to grant ownership of the suit property to the 1st Defendant when the Plaintiff was in occupation and claimed ownership at the material time.
3. Whether or not the Defendants acted fraudulently jointly and/or severally in their dealings with the suit property.
4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

• Plaintiff's suit dismissed.
• First Defendant may proceed with demolition and re-development of Plot 5, Obote Avenue, Lira Municipality.
• No general damages awarded as a gesture of reconciliation.
• Costs of the suit awarded to the First Defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Expropriated Properties Act 1982
• Land Act s.60
• Registration of Titles Act s.59

Cases cited (4)

• Kampala District Land Board and George Mitala v Venansio Babtueyaka (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
• Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702
• Waimiha Saw Milling Co Ltd v Waione Timber Co Ltd [1962] AC 101
• Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 22 of 1992)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Ojede v Lutalo (M.A 049 of 2012)

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