Wakilii

Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians property Custodian Board (Civil Appeal 21 of 93)

Supreme Court · [1994] UGSC 47 · 1994 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court declaratory suit
Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and decree set aside; declaration granted that the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 applies to the suit land; declaration on entitlement to a re-possession certificate declined

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 Supreme Court considered whether section 1(1)(c) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 applied only to property lawfully taken over by the Military Regime. The trial judge, following the Gandesha case, had read the word 'lawful' into the provision and held the Act inapplicable to the club's land, which armed prisons officers had forcibly occupied. The Court held this was wrong: the words 'in any other way appropriated or taken over' bear their ordinary meaning and cover both lawful and unlawful takings. As a remedial statute the Act must be construed liberally. The suit property fell within section 1(1)(c), and section 1(2)(b) continued the expired lease. Appeal allowed with costs.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and decree set aside; declaration granted that the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 applies to the suit land; declaration on entitlement to a re-possession certificate declined

Facts

The appellants were the registered trustees of the Kampala Institute, a club holding land on lease in Kampala on which stood its clubhouse and recreation grounds. By 1972 its membership was largely Asian. After the Military Government expelled the Asian community in 1972, the Government took over the property, which the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board managed and which was used as a mess for senior prisons officers. It was common ground that on 14 December 1972 the Prisons Department forcefully took over the property. In 1983 the trustees applied to the Board for return of the property under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982. After a prolonged verification, the Board rejected the application on the ground that the lease had expired and the land had reverted to Kampala City Council, the controlling authority. The trustees sued in the High Court for declarations that the Act applied and that they were entitled to a certificate of re-possession. The trial judge held the Act did not apply because the taking over was unlawful and so fell outside section 1(1)(c).

Issues

  1. Whether the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 applied to the suit property.
  2. Whether section 1(1)(c) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 covers property taken over by the Military Regime only where the taking over was lawful, or covers any appropriation or taking over whether lawful or unlawful.
  3. Whether the ejusdem generis rule applies to the construction of section 1(1) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982.
  4. Whether the appellants were entitled to a certificate of re-possession.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment and decree of the High Court set aside.
  • Judgment substituted in favour of the appellants with a declaration that the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 applies to the suit land.
  • Declaration regarding entitlement to a re-possession certificate declined.
  • Costs of the appeal and of the court below awarded to the appellants.

Rules and key headnotes

Statutory Interpretation — Expropriated Properties Act 1982 — Meaning of 'in any other way appropriated or taken over'
The words 'in any other way appropriated or taken over by the Military Regime' in section 1(1)(c) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 bear their ordinary meaning and apply whether the appropriation or taking over was lawful or unlawful; a court may not read the words 'lawful' or 'legal' into the provision.
Statutory Interpretation — Ejusdem Generis Rule — Inapplicability
The ejusdem generis rule does not apply where there are no particular words followed by general words; paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 1(1) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 are separate and independent of each other and must each be construed on its own to give it full effect.
Statutory Interpretation — Remedial Statutes — Liberal Construction and the Mischief Rule
A remedial statute such as the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 must be construed liberally and not restrictively, so as to suppress the mischief it was intended to redress and advance the remedy of returning property to former owners.
Statutory Interpretation — Reading Words into a Statute
A court is not entitled to read into an Act of Parliament words which are not there, absent clear necessity to do so.
Land & Property — Expropriated Property — Continuation of an Expired Lease
Where property falls within section 1(1)(c) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982, section 1(2)(b) operates to continue an expired lease in force until the property is dealt with under the Act.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (6)

  • Gabriel Juma Lutaya v Gandesha and Kampala Estates Limited (Civil Suit No. 860 of 1982)
  • Thompson v Goold & Co [1910] AC 409
  • Vickers Sons & Maxim Ltd v Evans [1910] AC 444
  • Attorney General v Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover [1957] AC 436
  • (1879) L.R. 5 PC 492
  • Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1992

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians property Custodian Board (Civil Appeal 21 of 93) [1994] UGSC 47 (1 August 1994)
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.