Wakilii

Ostraco Limited v Attorney General (Civil Suit 1380 of 1986)

High Court · [2002] UGHC 129 · 2002 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for eviction, permanent injunction, damages, mesne profits and costs
Decision
Judgment for plaintiff with orders for mesne profits, general damages, vacant possession within thirty days (failing which eviction shall issue), and costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (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 4 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 4 citing cases on record, 4 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 court held that the plaintiff, as registered proprietor of the suit property, was entitled to possession and mesne profits from the defendant who had wrongfully occupied the premises since 1985. The court found that proviso (b) to Section 15 of the Government Proceedings Act, which prohibits eviction orders against government, is inconsistent with the 1995 Constitution. Applying Article 273, the court construed the existing law with modifications to bring it into conformity with the Constitution, ordering the government to give vacant possession within thirty days. Mesne profits totalling UGX 383,950,000 were awarded, along with general damages of UGX 50,000,000.

Outcome

Judgment for plaintiff with orders for mesne profits, general damages, vacant possession within thirty days (failing which eviction shall issue), and costs

Facts

In June 1985, Osotraco Limited purchased Plot No. 69 Mbuya Hill, Kampala from Uganda Times Newspapers Limited and was registered as proprietor on 23 August 1985. Employees of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting occupied the property and refused to vacate, claiming it belonged to the Ministry. The defendant challenged the sale, alleging it was done without proper consents from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and Ministry of Finance, and that the transfer was fraudulent, taking advantage of the chaos following the 27 July 1985 coup. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting entered a caveat on the register on 27 November 1986 and obtained a temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff from dealing with the property. The property comprised four blocks of residential flats with eight housing units per block, plus servants' quarters. The plaintiff had mortgaged the property to a bank to secure a loan.

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.
  6. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action (preliminary objection).
  7. Whether proviso (b) to Section 15 of the Government Proceedings Act is in conformity with the Constitution of Uganda.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action dismissed.
  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff.
  • Mesne profits awarded in the sum of UGX 383,950,000.
  • Interest at 25% per annum awarded on mesne profits for the period 1986 to 1990.
  • Interest at 12% per annum awarded on mesne profits for the period 1991 to 2000.
  • Interest at 6% per annum awarded on mesne profits for the period January 2001 to January 2002.
  • Mesne profits to continue to accrue pro rata until possession is delivered.
  • General damages awarded in the sum of UGX 50,000,000.
  • 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.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Interest at court rate to accrue on the decretal amount from the date of judgment until payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Registered Proprietorship — Certificate of Title as Conclusive Evidence
Production of a certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership of the property under Section 56 of the Registration of Titles Act, and such title cannot be impeached save for fraud which must be specifically pleaded and proved.
Damages & Quantum — Mesne Profits — Definition and Computation
Mesne profits are those profits which the person in wrongful possession of property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received, together with interest on such profits, but excluding profits due to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession. The probable rental value of the premises is the basis for calculating mesne profits.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Disclosure of Cause of Action
It is not strictly essential that a plaint allege that servants of the defendant were acting in the course of their employment; it is sufficient to state that it is the acts of servants of the defendant which are complained against, as the defendant is in a better position to know if they were acting in the course of employment.
Constitutional Law — Supremacy of Constitution — Construing Existing Law in Conformity with Constitution
Under Article 273 of the Constitution, existing law shall be construed with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring it into conformity with the Constitution where it is inconsistent with constitutional provisions.
Constitutional Law — Judicial Authority — Source and Exercise of Judicial Power
Under the 1995 Constitution, judicial authority is derived from the people and is exercised in the name of the people in conformity with law and with the values, norms and aspirations of the people, not on behalf of the Crown or its successors. All power belongs to the people who exercise their sovereignty in accordance with the Constitution.
Administrative Law — Government Proceedings — Eviction Orders Against Government
Proviso (b) to Section 15 of the Government Proceedings Act, which prohibits courts from making orders for eviction against government and requires declaratory orders instead, is inconsistent with the Constitution. A declaratory order is less than appropriate relief and is not effective redress. Where a constitutional right to property is infringed by government, the court may make a coercive eviction order to provide effective redress.
Constitutional Law — Enforcement of Constitutional Rights — Effective Remedies
Article 50(1) of the Constitution assures redress before the courts to any person who claims infringement of a constitutional right. Redress refers to effective redress, and nothing short of this; a less than appropriate remedy is not effective redress. Courts have power to grant effective relief for contravention of a protected constitutional right and may fashion new remedies if necessary.

Legislation cited (17)

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 (4)

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.

Ostraco Limited v Attorney General (Civil Suit 1380 of 1986) [2002] UGHC 129 (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.