Attorney General v Mitha & Sons Limited (Misc. Cause No. 10 of 2010)
Attorney General v Mitha & Sons Limited (Misc. Cause No. 10 of 2010) [2014] UGHCLD 125 (10 October 2014)
The court found that the discrepancy in the affidavit was a typographical error and did not invalidate the affidavit. The repossession letter issued to the respondent was deemed to have the same legal effect as a certificate of repossession, and the respondent, through its duly appointed attorney, exercised effective management of the property within the statutory period. The applicant failed to prove that the powers of attorney were forged or that the respondent did not comply with the requirements of the Expropriated Properties Act. Furthermore, the claim for cancellation of the repossessio…
Source excerpt
- Expropriated Properties Act
- Repossession Of Property
- Limitation Periods
- Powers Of Attorney
- Government Property
- Effective Management Requirement