Wakilii

Osotraco Limited v Attorney General (Suit No. 1380 of 1986)

High Court · [2002] UGHC 5 · 2002 Judgment for Plaintiff — Eviction Ordered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for eviction and recovery of property
Decision
Defendant ordered to vacate property and pay mesne profits and general damages

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Government Proceedings Act s.15(b), which prohibits courts from issuing eviction orders against Government, is inconsistent with the 1995 Constitution. Applying Constitution Article 273, the court construed the provision so as not to apply, holding that a declaratory order is not effective redress where the plaintiff has proven wrongful occupation. The court ordered the Attorney General to give vacant possession within thirty days and awarded mesne profits and general damages.

Outcome

Defendant ordered to vacate property and pay mesne profits and general damages

Facts

Osotraco Limited purchased Plot 69 Mbuya Hill, Kampala from Uganda Times Newspapers Limited in June 1985 and registered the transfer in August 1985. Employees of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting remained in occupation, claiming the property belonged to the Ministry. The Ministry entered a caveat on the register in November 1986 and obtained a temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff from dealing with the property. The plaintiff sought eviction, mesne profits, and damages. The defendant claimed the sale occurred without required consents from the Ministries of Information and Finance and was therefore illegal, asserting Government was the legal proprietor. The property comprised four blocks of residential flats with eight housing units per block, plus servants' quarters. The lease was due to expire in April 2001.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor and entitled to possession of the suit property
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits from the defendant
  3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to special and general damages, and if so how much
  4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an order for eviction and or vacant possession from the Attorney General
  5. Which party is entitled to costs of the suit

Orders

  • Preliminary objection dismissed.
  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff.
  • Defendant and its servants ordered to give vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within thirty days from the date of judgment, failing which eviction shall issue.
  • Mesne profits awarded in the sum of UGX 383,950,000.
  • Mesne profits to continue to accrue pro rata for as long as the defendant continues in occupation of the suit property.
  • Interest at 25% per annum on mesne profits for the period 1986 to 1990.
  • Interest at 12% per annum on mesne profits for the period 1991 to 2000.
  • Interest at 6% per annum on mesne profits for the period January 2001 to January 2002.
  • General damages awarded in the sum of UGX 50,000,000.
  • Interest at court rate to accrue on the decretal amount from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Title — Registered Proprietor — Conclusiveness — Certificate of Title as Evidence of Ownership
Under Registration of Titles Act s.56, production of a certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership of the property in question. Where a plaintiff produces a certified copy of the certificate of title showing it as the registered proprietor, and the defendant does not impeach the title by proving fraud with specific particulars pleaded, the plaintiff is the registered owner entitled to possession.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Pleadings — Preliminary Objection — Sufficiency of Pleadings
It is not strictly essential that a plaint plead that servants of a defendant were acting in the course of their employment. It is sufficient to state that the acts of servants are complained against. The defendant is in a better position to know whether servants were acting in the course of employment and must raise this in its pleadings.
Civil Procedure — Mesne Profits — Definition — Wrongful Possession — Computation
Mesne profits are those profits which the person in wrongful possession actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received, together with interest, but excluding profits due to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession. The probable rental value of premises forms the basis for calculating mesne profits where the defendant is in wrongful possession and has denied the plaintiff's title.
Constitutional Law — Supremacy of Constitution — Interpretation of Existing Law — Modifications to Conform with Constitution
Under Constitution Article 273, existing law must be construed with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring it into conformity with the Constitution. Where a question arises as to whether existing law conforms to the Constitution, a court may construe the existing law to bring it into conformity without necessarily referring the matter to the Constitutional Court under Article 137(5).
Constitutional Law — Judicial Power — Source and Exercise — Separation from Crown Prerogative
Under the 1995 Constitution, judicial authority is not exercised on behalf of the Crown or its successors, but is derived from the people and exercised in the names of the people in conformity with law and the values, norms and aspirations of the people. The constitutional theory that courts exercise authority on behalf of the Crown has no place under the 1995 Constitution.
Administrative Law — Government Proceedings — Remedies Against Government — Coercive Orders — Eviction
Government Proceedings Act s.15(b), which prohibits courts from making orders for recovery of land against Government and requires declaratory orders instead, is inconsistent with the Constitution in so far as it denies appropriate relief and effective redress. The provision must be construed with qualifications so as not to apply where substantive justice demands a coercive eviction order. A declaratory order is not effective redress where it leaves a successful plaintiff at the mercy of government functionaries.
Constitutional Law — Right to Property — Effective Redress — Constitutional Remedies
Where a person seeks to enforce the constitutional right to property protected by Article 26 against wrongful infringement by Government, Article 50(1) assures redress before the courts. Redress refers to effective redress, not merely nominal relief. Where a right protected by the Constitution has been breached, the court has power to grant effective relief and may fashion a new remedy to give such relief where necessary.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (7)

  • Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 51
  • Kangave v Attorney General [1972] ULR 150
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Limited (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Jaundoo v Attorney General of Grenada [1971] AC 972
  • Gairy v Attorney General of Grenada [2000] WLR 779
  • N Nagendra Rao and co v State of A. P. AIR 1994 SC 2663
  • Byrne v Ireland and the Attorney General [1972] IR 241

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Osotraco Limited v Attorney General (Suit No. 1380 of 1986) [2002] UGHC 5 (20 March 2002)
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.