Wakilii

Suleiman Adrisi v Rashida Abdul Karim & Anor (Civil Suit No. 0008 of 2017)

High Court · [2018] UGHCLD 31 · 2018 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declaration of ownership and compensation for improvements
Decision
Judgment entered for defendants. Plaintiff's suit dismissed. Plaintiff ordered to vacate and pay mesne profits.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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

Held that where land was lawfully repossessed by a former Asian owner under the Expropriated Properties Act, a subsequent lease granted by a District Land Board over the same property was illegal under the nemo dat principle because the Board's predecessor in title had already transferred the legal estate to the repossessing owner and could not execute a subsequent grant. The plaintiff's title was issued in error and properly cancelled. The plaintiff became a trespasser after repossession and was liable for mesne profits, offset by compensation for improvements made during lawful occupation.

Outcome

Judgment entered for defendants. Plaintiff's suit dismissed. Plaintiff ordered to vacate and pay mesne profits.

Facts

The first defendant, a person of Asian extraction, owned Plot 2 New Lane Arua under a 47-year lease granted in 1969. In 1972 she was expelled and the property expropriated under the Amin regime. The building was destroyed during the 1979 war. In 1988 the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board permitted the plaintiff to rebuild the plot. He reconstructed the building at a claimed cost of UGX 56,920,300 and occupied it as a tenant, subletting rooms to other tenants. In 1999 the first defendant was issued a repossession certificate under the Expropriated Properties Act. In 2013 Arua District Land Board granted the plaintiff a lease offer, leading to issuance of a certificate of title in 2015. In 2016 the first defendant obtained a renewed lease title. The second defendant, acting as the first defendant's agent, notified the plaintiff's tenants to pay rent to him. The District Land Board and Registrar of Titles subsequently cancelled the plaintiff's title as having been issued in error. The plaintiff sued for declaration of ownership and compensation. The defendants counterclaimed for mesne profits.

Issues

  1. Who between the plaintiff and the first defendant is the rightful and lawful owner of the suit land?
  2. Who of the parties as between the plaintiff and the defendants is a trespasser on the suit land?
  3. Whether any of the parties acquired a certificate of title to the suit land illegally and/or fraudulently?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Declaration that the first defendant is the rightful owner of land comprised in Plot 2 New Lane Arua Municipality.
  • Order of vacant possession — plaintiff to hand over premises to the first defendant's agent (second defendant) on or before 30 April 2018.
  • Award of UGX 388,000,000 as mesne profits payable to the first defendant for trespass from 14 January 2000 to date.
  • Interest on mesne profits at 8% per annum from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit and of the counterclaim awarded to the defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Expropriated Properties — Repossession — Effect of Repossession Certificate
A certificate of repossession issued under section 6(1) of the Expropriated Properties Act divests proprietorship of expropriated property from government and reverts it to the former owner, providing sufficient authority for the Chief Registrar of Titles to transfer title to that former owner.
Validity of Title — Nemo Dat Principle — Concurrent Titles
Where a legal estate in land has been transferred to a grantee, the grantor cannot execute a subsequent grant of the same estate to another person. The nemo dat principle prevents a District Land Board from granting a lease over land already subject to a running lease in favour of another party, and any such subsequent grant is illegal and void.
Validity Disputes — Distinction from Priority Disputes
Where two certificates of title purport to confer identical legal estates in the same parcel of land to different persons, the dispute is one of validity and not priority. Only one fee simple estate may exist against any single piece of land, and the principle of 'first in time' does not apply to determine which title is valid.
Expropriated Properties — Departed Asians Property Custodian Board — Powers After 1983
After commencement of the Expropriated Properties Act on 21 February 1983, the powers of the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board were limited to management of expropriated properties. The Board no longer had powers to sell such properties, and any purported sale thereafter was void.
Trespass — Conversion of Lawful Occupier to Trespasser
A person who initially enters land lawfully as a periodical tenant but remains upon the land without permission of the landlord after property is returned to a former owner becomes a trespasser. Under the Expropriated Properties Act, legitimate tenants are entitled to not less than 90 days notice to vacate where property is returned to a former owner.
Mesne Profits — Calculation — Offset for Improvements
Mesne profits are calculated on the basis of what a person in wrongful possession actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received from the property, measured as the amount that might reasonably have been demanded as payment for user of the land. Mesne profits do not include profits due to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession. Under section 12(2) of the Expropriated Properties Act, compensation for improvements may be offset against mesne profits due.
Limitation — Claims for Compensation under Statute
A claim to recover compensation for improvements under section 12(2) of the Expropriated Properties Act is an action to recover a sum recoverable by virtue of an enactment, which under section 3(1)(d) of the Limitation Act must be brought within six years from the date the cause of action arose. The cause of action arises on the date of repossession. A plaintiff who fails to plead disability cannot pursue a time-barred claim.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (9)

  • Kampala Bottlers v Damanico (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • H. R. Patel v. B.K. Patel [1992 - 1993] HCB 137
  • Fredrick J. K Zaabwe v Orient Bank and 5 others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Mwebesa and three others v Shumuk Springs Development Limited and three others (High Court Civil Suit No. 126 of 2009)
  • Iga v. Makerere University [1972] EA 65
  • Devenish Nutrition Ltd v. Sanofi-Aventis Sa (France) and others, [2009] Ch 390, 2009] 3 WLR 198, [2009] 3 All ER 27
  • Swordheath Properties Ltd v. Tabet [1979] 1 WLR 285
  • Whitwham v. Westminster Brymbo Coal and Coke Co, [1896] 2 Ch 538
  • Attorney General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Suleiman_Adrisi_v_Rashida_Abdul_Karim_&_Anor_(Civil_Suit_No._0008_of_2017)_[2018]_UGHCLD_31_(9_April_2018)
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.