Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Board [1995] UGSC 21

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.

Holding

On a reference to the full court from a single judge's taxation ruling, the Supreme Court held that the single judge correctly reduced the instruction fee from Shs 70,000,000 to Shs 7,000,000. The taxing officer had misdirected himself by basing the fee on the aggregate value of the suit property, including post-1972 developments owned by persons not party to the suit. Because the substantive appeal decided only the intellectual question of whether the Expropriated Properties Act applied to the land — and did not confer or quantify proprietary rights in money — the value of the property was not a proper basis for taxing the instruction fee. The reference was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Reference dismissed with costs; the single judge's reduction of the instruction fee to Shs 7,000,000 stands

Facts

The applicants, registered trustees of the Kampala Institute, a former members' club whose largely Asian membership left Uganda after the 1972 expulsion, owned leasehold land in Kampala holding the clubhouse and recreation ground. After the expulsion the government took over and managed the property through the respondent custodian board. The applicants sued in the High Court for declarations that the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 applied to the land; the suit was dismissed but the Supreme Court allowed their appeal (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1995), declaring that section 1(1)(c) of the Act applied, while declining to grant a repossession certificate. The taxing officer allowed an instruction fee of Shs 70,000,000, valuing the suit property at about Shs 2.1 billion including post-1972 developments owned by persons not party to the suit. On reference, Platt JSC reduced the fee to Shs 7,000,000. The applicants referred that ruling to the full court.

Issues

1. Whether the single judge erred in reducing the instruction fee fixed by the taxing officer.
2. Whether the value of the suit property was a proper basis for taxing the instruction fee where the substantive appeal decided only a point of statutory interpretation.
3. Whether the value of developments owned by persons not party to the suit could be taken into account in taxing costs.

Orders

• Reference dismissed.
• Costs of the reference to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.1(1)(c)
• Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.1(2)(b)
• Rules of the Supreme Court Rule 51
• Rules of the Supreme Court Rule 108
• Rules of the Supreme Court Rule 109(1)
• Rules of the Supreme Court Rule 109(2)
• Rules of the Supreme Court Rule 109(5)
• Rules of the Supreme Court Third Schedule para 9(2)

Cases cited (8)

• Bremchand Harchand Ver. Quarry Service (1972) EA at page 162
• Attorney General v Uganda Blankets Manufacturers (1973) Ltd (Civil Application No. 17 of 1985)
• Hanyuki Esso Service Ver. Touring Cars Ltd (1972) SA 300
• Patrick Makumbi & Another v Sole Electric Ltd (Civil Application No. 11 of 1994)
• Allen vs. Pratt (1888) App. (cas. 780)
• Nooner & Another Vs. Nevill & Another (1939) SA 7 at page 76
• Lutaya Vs. Gandesha (1986) HCB 46
• Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1995)

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