Wakilii

Surgipharm (U) Limited v Uganda Investment Authourity and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 65 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 89 · 2022 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Judicial review application challenging cancellation of lease and reallocation of property
Decision
Application partly allowed. Cancellation of lease extension quashed. Reallocation to 2nd Respondent upheld. Applicant awarded UGX 180,000,000 in general damages.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 5 (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 5 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 5 citing cases on record, 5 in the most recent three data years. 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 the Uganda Investment Authority's cancellation of Surgipharm's lease extension without affording a hearing violated Article 42 of the Constitution and constituted procedural impropriety. The court granted certiorari quashing the cancellation decision and awarded UGX 180,000,000 in general damages. However, the reallocation of the property to Allied Graphics was lawful as the Authority had no obligation to consult other parties before exercising its statutory allocation function. The application was amenable to judicial review because it challenged a public body's compliance with natural justice principles, not merely breach of contract.

Outcome

Application partly allowed. Cancellation of lease extension quashed. Reallocation to 2nd Respondent upheld. Applicant awarded UGX 180,000,000 in general damages.

Facts

In 2008, Uganda Investment Authority allocated land at Luzira Industrial Park to Surgipharm (U) Limited under a lease agreement containing a development covenant requiring completion within three years. The lease was extended multiple times despite Surgipharm's failure to develop the land. In August 2019, UIA declined a further extension due to non-compliance with development covenants. Surgipharm appealed and on 20th December 2019, UIA granted a two-year extension effective 8th February 2020. On 19th November 2020, before the extension expired, UIA cancelled Surgipharm's lease for failure to develop and allocated the property to Allied Graphics System (U) Limited. Surgipharm claimed it was not given notice or a hearing before cancellation. Allied Graphics executed a lease agreement on 31st December 2020 and obtained a certificate of title on 12th February 2021.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant's supplementary affidavit lodged on 29th July 2021 is improperly before the court and should be struck off the record?
  2. Whether this application is amenable to judicial review?
  3. Whether the cancellation of the Applicant's title by the 1st Respondent and re-allocation of the suit property to the 2nd Respondent was lawful?

Orders

  • Applicant's supplementary affidavit filed on 29th July 2021 struck off the record.
  • Order of Certiorari granted quashing the 1st Respondent's decision dated 19th November 2020 cancelling the lease extension granted on 20th December 2019.
  • Order of Certiorari refused in respect of the 1st Respondent's decision to allocate the suit property to the 2nd Respondent.
  • Order of Prohibition refused.
  • General damages of UGX 180,000,000 awarded to the Applicant.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the Applicant against the 1st Respondent.
  • 2nd Respondent to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Amenability — Public Body Exercising Contractual Powers
Where a public body exercises contractual or commercial powers, its conduct remains amenable to judicial review if it fails to accord fair and just treatment as required by Article 42 of the Constitution. A public body cannot shield itself from judicial review merely because the dealing was contractual in nature.
Natural Justice — Legitimate Expectation — Withdrawal of Granted Extension
Where a public body grants a lease extension for a specified period, the lessee acquires a legitimate expectation to hold the lease for that period. If the public body wishes to withdraw the extension before its expiry, it must afford the lessee an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the rules of natural justice.
Procedural Impropriety — Failure to Afford Hearing
A decision by a public body to cancel or withdraw a lease extension without affording the affected party a hearing constitutes procedural impropriety and renders the decision void. Communication of a decision after it has been taken does not cure the irregularity of failing to hear the party before the decision was made.
Lease Agreements — Development Covenants — Power to Refuse Extension vs. Power to Cancel
A lease covenant providing that the lessor shall not grant an extension if development is not completed to the lessor's satisfaction entitles the lessor to refuse renewal at the end of the term. It does not confer power to revoke or cancel an already granted extension during its currency without affording the lessee a hearing.
Judicial Review — Damages — Additional Cause of Action
In judicial review proceedings, damages may be awarded if the applicant establishes both a ground for judicial review and a separate cause of action that would have entitled them to damages in a separate suit, such as misfeasance in public office or breach of contract by a public body.
Affidavit Evidence — Supplementary Affidavits — Leave of Court
A supplementary affidavit filed after closure of pleadings in proceedings determined on affidavit evidence requires leave of court and notice to the adverse party. Filing such an affidavit without leave after an affidavit in rejoinder has been filed, or after the matter has come up for hearing, amounts to trial by ambush and contravenes the principle of fair hearing.
Statutory Allocation of Land — Third Party Rights — Indefeasibility
Where a statutory body lawfully allocates land and a third party obtains registration in good faith without fraud, the registration cannot be impeached in judicial review proceedings challenging the cancellation of a prior lease. The allocation decision itself is not subject to procedural impropriety where the body has no obligation to consult other parties before exercising its statutory allocation function.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (20)

  • Mutembuli Yusuf v Nagwomu Moses Musamba & Another (EP Appeal No. 43 of 2016)
  • Dr. Lam-Lagoro James v Muni University (HC MC No. 07 of 2016)
  • Arua Kubala Park Operations & Market Vendor's Cooperative Society Limited v Arua Municipal Council (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2016)
  • Amal v Equal Opportunities Commission (HCMC No. 233 of 2016)
  • Nakasero Market Sitting Vendors & Traders Ltd v KCCA & Another (HCMC No. 348 of 2020)
  • National Information Technology Authority Uganda v Uganda Investment Authority & Another (HCMC No. 105 of 2021)
  • Leads Insurance Limited v Insurance Regulatory Authority & Another (CACA No. 237 of 2015)
  • John Ssentongo v Commissioner Land Registration & Others (HCMC No. 13 of 2019)
  • Council of Civil Service Unions & Others vs. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374
  • Byrne v. Kinematograph Renters Society Ltd, [1958]1 WLR 762
  • Eng. Pascal Gakyaro v Civil Aviation Authority (CACA No. 6 of 2006)
  • Three Rivers District Council versus Bank of England (3) [3003]2 AC 1
  • X (Minors) versus Bedfordshire County Council [1995]2 AC 633
  • EAPT CORPORATION LTD VS. DR. L.P LODHIA C.A NO. 52/1974
  • Robert Cuossens v Attorney General (SCCA No. 8 of 1999)
  • Uganda Commercial bank v. Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Bank of Uganda v Fred William Masaba & 5 Others (SCCA No. 3 of 1998)
  • Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd Vs Mardon (1976) 2 ALL ER
  • ACP Bakaleke Siraji v Attorney General (HC MC No. 212 of 2018)
  • Quesnel Forks Gold Mining Co. Ltd v Ward [1920] AC 222

Cases citing this judgment (5)

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.

Surgipharm (U) Limited v Uganda Investment Authourity and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 65 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 89 (13 May 2022)
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.