Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Land Commission (HCT-04-CV-MC-0020-2009)
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 granted vesting orders for ten properties to Uganda Revenue Authority under S.166 Registration of Titles Act and S.19(1) Uganda Revenue Authority Act. The court held that a vesting order may be granted where authorized by statute, and that properties vested in government for use by customs, income tax, and inland revenue departments were automatically vested in URA upon commencement of the URA Act without further assurance. Uganda Land Commission's continued holding of these properties in trust after the statute came into force was without legal basis.
Outcome
Vesting orders granted for ten properties; application for one property refused as unnecessary
Facts
Uganda Revenue Authority applied for vesting orders in respect of eleven properties that had been used by the departments of customs, income tax, and inland revenue prior to URA's creation in 1991. The properties were originally owned by the East African Common Services Authority and later the defunct East African Community. When the East African Community ceased to exist, the properties were vested in the Ministry of Finance and registered in the name of Uganda Land Commission to hold in trust. URA succeeded to these properties by virtue of S.19(1) Uganda Revenue Authority Act, which vests in URA all property previously vested in government for use by the named departments. URA had been in effective possession and occupation since 1991 but Uganda Land Commission had not transferred the titles despite repeated requests. URA served statutory notice of intention to sue and Uganda Land Commission acknowledged service but did not appear at the hearing.
Issues
- Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant vesting orders in respect of properties vested in the applicant by statute.
- Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for a vesting order under S.166 Registration of Titles Act.
- Whether S.19(1) Uganda Revenue Authority Act operates to vest the suit properties in the applicant by statute without further assurance.
Orders
- A vesting order is granted to Uganda Revenue Authority in respect of ten properties: FRV 210 Folio 19 Plot 28 Airport Road Entebbe; FRV 208 Folio 19 Malaba Bridge-Bukedi; FRV 212 Folio 12 Merama Customs Post; FRV 213 Folio 20 Plot 2A Nadiope Road East Jinja; FRV 228 Folio 1 Goli Customs Post; FRV 208 Folio 15 Plot 1, 2A, 10 Block E Butiaba; LRV 299 Folio 5 Plots 52 and 54 Seventh Street Industrial Area Kampala; LRV 766 Folio 7 Plot 41, 43, 45, 47 Kamugugunu Road Mbarara; FRV 222 Folio 7 Plot 9 Njara Road Fortportal; LRV 759 Folio 23 plot 1 and 1A Hayes Sadler Road and plots 6, 8, 12, 14 School Drive Mbale.
- No vesting order is granted in respect of LRV 759 Folio 23 Plot 7-11 Maluku Drive as the court had previously determined ownership in Civil Suit 0042 of 2001.
- The application is allowed with costs to the applicant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Registration of Titles Act s.166
- Registration of Titles Act s.167
- Uganda Revenue Authority Act s.19(1)
- Land Act s.49(a)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 rr.1 & 3
Cases cited (3)
- Application by the Trustees of Lugave Clan [1960] EA 322
- Application for a Vesting Order by Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited (HC Misc. Cause 209 of 2004)
- Yasimini Nabirye Kahira v Uganda Revenue Authority & Chief Registrar of Titles (Civil Suit No. 0042 of 2001)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.