Wakilii

Sheema Cooperative Ranching Society & Ors v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No.103 of 2010)

High Court · [2013] UGHCLD 21 · 2013 Judgment for Plaintiffs — Fresh Valuation Ordered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declaration of unlawful acquisition of land and adequate compensation
Decision
Matter remanded for fresh valuation by independent valuer to determine market value as at 2009-2010, less amounts already paid; exercise to be completed within three months

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 High Court held that government's compulsory acquisition of ranchers' land under the Ranch Restructuring Policy was unlawful because the required procedures under the Land Acquisition Act were not followed, the statutory instrument was issued after invasion had occurred, and compensation was neither prompt nor transparent. The 2005 valuation report was inadequate as it did not reflect 2009-2010 market values when payments were made and failed to include disturbance allowance. Court ordered fresh valuation by an independent valuer at 2009-2010 market rates less amounts already paid.

Outcome

Matter remanded for fresh valuation by independent valuer to determine market value as at 2009-2010, less amounts already paid; exercise to be completed within three months

Facts

The plaintiffs were registered proprietors of leasehold ranches under the Ankole-Masaka Ranching Scheme where they carried out cattle and dairy farming. In 1990 government established the Ranch Restructuring Board to forcibly acquire portions of the ranches and redistribute land to landless squatters. Government agents invaded the ranches before formal acquisition procedures commenced. In 2005 government commissioned RESCO to value the land for compensation purposes. Despite completing the valuation report in August 2005, government did not disclose it to the plaintiffs and made no payments until 2009-2010. When payments were finally made, plaintiffs discovered they were based on 2005 market rates of approximately UGX 296,000 per acre without disturbance allowance or provision for injurious affection. The plaintiffs commissioned their own valuation in 2010 which reflected higher market values, but the valuer lacked a valid practicing certificate under the Surveyors Registration Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the acquisition of the plaintiffs' land by government was lawful.
  2. Whether the compensation offered by government pursuant to the 2005 valuation report was adequate, or whether plaintiffs are entitled to compensation on the basis of their own valuation report.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to fair, timely and adequate compensation for the land alienated by government.
  • Declaration that the valuation report commissioned by the Chief Government Valuer as basis for compensation was neither fair nor adequate.
  • An independent valuer appointed by the Registrar be commissioned to carry out fresh valuation to determine the market value of the property as at 2009-2010, with the amount determined to be less the amounts already paid to the plaintiffs, the award to be confirmed by the Chief Government Valuer.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.
  • Interest on costs at court rate until payment in full.
  • The valuation exercise to be completed within three months from judgment date.

Rules and key headnotes

Compulsory Acquisition — Procedural Requirements under Land Acquisition Act
Government cannot lawfully compulsorily acquire land by issuing a statutory instrument after invasion has already occurred and then use that instrument to retrospectively legitimise the taking. Compulsory acquisition must follow the procedures set out in the Land Acquisition Act including ministerial declaration, service of notice on registered proprietors, marking and measuring of land, publication of notice in the Gazette, inquiry into claims, and award of compensation before taking possession.
Constitutional Protection of Property Rights — Article 26
Under Article 26(2) of the Constitution, compulsory deprivation of property requires that the taking be necessary for public interest and made under a law providing for prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation prior to taking possession, and a right of access to court. Invasion of land by government-inspired squatters followed by a purported legalising instrument violates constitutional protection of property rights.
Compulsory Acquisition — Market Value as Basis for Compensation
Compensation for compulsory acquisition must be assessed on the basis of market value, defined as the price a willing vendor might expect from a willing purchaser who is not a wild or unreasonable speculator. Where valuation is conducted in 2005 but payment is delayed until 2009-2010, the compensation is neither fair, adequate nor prompt as required by the Constitution because it does not reflect current market value at the time of payment.
Compulsory Acquisition — Disturbance Allowance
In compulsory acquisition cases where claimants were settled on the land conducting ranching activities and had made developments, they are entitled to disturbance allowance as they move from the restructured area. If disturbance allowance is claimed to be inbuilt in the valuation, it must be expressly stated in the award showing the base amount plus the disturbance allowance percentage to arrive at the total; failure to do so is a professional oversight.
Compulsory Acquisition — Injurious Affection
Injurious affection in compulsory acquisition applies only when the land left after acquisition is too small or economically unviable to carry out the intended development. Where ranchers retain sizeable chunks of land that can still sustain ranching activities after restructuring, there is no basis for awarding injurious affection.
Surveyors Registration — Requirement for Valid Practicing Certificate
Under the Surveyors Registration Act section 19, no person shall engage in or carry out the practice of surveying unless holding a valid practicing certificate. A valuation report prepared by a person not registered and without a valid practicing certificate is illegal and cannot form the basis for compensation, and the court cannot sanction what is illegal even where the illegality appears on the face of admissions made on the pleadings.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (7)

  • Bhatt and Another v Habib Rajani [1958] EA
  • Uganda Electricity Board v Launde Stephen Sanya (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
  • Kuldip Krataura v The Law Development Centre [1978] HCB 296
  • Buran Chandmary v The Collector [1957] EACA 125
  • Makula International v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] HCB 11
  • Rwanyarare v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 95 of 2001)
  • Byanyima v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 359 of 1996)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sheema Cooperative Ranching Society & Ors v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No.103 of 2010) [2013] UGHCLD 21 (27 February 2013)
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.