Wakilii

Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Registered Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1993)

Supreme Court · [1994] UGSC 57 · 1994 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal to the Supreme Court from a High Court judgment dismissing a suit for declaratory orders.
Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and decree set aside; declared 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 held that section 1(1)(c) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 — property 'in any other way appropriated or taken over by the Military Regime' — must be given its plain, ordinary meaning and covers property taken whether lawfully or unlawfully; the word 'lawful' cannot be read into the provision. The ejusdem generis rule did not apply because paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 1(1) are separate and independent. The Act is a remedial statute to be construed liberally to redress the mischief of expropriation by the Military Regime. The suit property therefore fell within section 1(1)(c), and section 1(2)(b) continued the expired lease in force. The High Court, having followed the erroneous (obiter) interpretation in the Gandesha case, was reversed.

Outcome

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

Facts

The appellants are the registered trustees of the Kampala Institute, a members' club that held land in Kampala on a lease in their name, on which stood the club house and recreation grounds. By 1972 the membership was largely Asian. Following the expulsion of Asians by the Military Regime in 1972, the Government, through the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (the respondent), took over the property, and the club house was used as a mess for Senior Prisons Officers. In December 1972 the Prisons Department forcefully took over the property. In 1983 the appellants applied for re-possession under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982. After a prolonged verification process the application was rejected on the ground that the lease under which the appellants held the property had expired and the land had reverted to Kampala City Council as controlling authority. The appellants sued in the High Court for declaratory orders that the Act applied and that they were entitled to a certificate of re-possession.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit property was acquired or taken over by the Military Regime so as to fall within section 1(1)(c) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982.
  2. Whether section 1(1)(c) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982, in covering property 'in any other way appropriated or taken over by the Military Regime', requires the taking to have been lawful, or whether it covers any taking whether lawful or unlawful.
  3. Whether the ejusdem generis rule applies to confine paragraph (c) of section 1(1) to takings made by law as in paragraphs (a) and (b).

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment and decree of the High Court set aside.
  • Substituted judgment 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, as it may affect the interests of persons or authorities who are not parties to the proceedings.
  • Costs to the appellants here and in the court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Statutory Interpretation — Ejusdem Generis Rule — When It Applies
The ejusdem generis rule applies only where a series of particular words in a statute is followed by general words; where statutory paragraphs are separate and independent of each other, each must be construed on its own to give it its full effect.
Statutory Interpretation — Remedial Statutes — Liberal Construction
A remedial statute must be construed liberally and not restrictively, so as to suppress the mischief it was intended to redress and advance the remedy, rather than perpetuate the mischief.
Statutory Interpretation — Reading Words into a Statute
A court is not entitled to read into an Act of Parliament words which the legislature did not include, in the absence of clear necessity to do so.
Land & Property — Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.1(1)(c) — Lawful or Unlawful Taking
Property 'in any other way appropriated or taken over by the Military Regime' under section 1(1)(c) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 is covered whether the taking was lawful or unlawful; the qualifying word 'lawful' or 'legal' cannot be implied into the provision.
Land & Property — Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.1(2)(b) — Continuation of 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 (5)

  • Lutaya v Gandesha and Kampala Estates Ltd (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] ... (187?) 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 Registered Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1993) [1994] UGSC 57 (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.