Uganda Case Law

Ismailia Building Company Limited & 3 Others v Attorney General & 4 Others

Ismailia Building Company Limited & 3 Others v Attorney General & 4 Others (Constitutional Petition 37 of 2019) [2024] UGCC 27 (18 December 2024)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Constitutional Petition 37 of 2019

Judge

Egonda-Ntende, JCC, Gashirabake, JCC, Eva K. Luswata, JA/JCC, Kazibwe, JCC, Asa Mugenyi, JA/ JCC

Section 9(1)(d) of the Expropriated Properties Act, which allows the Minister to deprive former owners of property if they do not physically return and reside in Uganda within 120 days after repossession, is inconsistent with Articles 2(2), 20(1)(2), 21(1)(2)(3), and 26(1)(2) of the Constitution. The provision ties property ownership to physical residence, which is not a constitutionally recognized justification for deprivation of property. The Constitution requires that deprivation of property must be for public use or other specified interests, with prompt payment of fair and adequate compe…

Source excerpt

• Expropriation Of Property
• Right To Property
• Constitutional Interpretation
• Discrimination
• Ministerial Powers
• Repossession Procedure

LSZ v Zimbabwe (Communication 321 of 2006)

LSZ v Zimbabwe (Communication 321 of 2006) [2016] ACHPR 10 (1 February 2016)

Court

African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Communication 321 of 2006

The African Commission found the complaint admissible but struck it out for lack of diligent prosecution after the applicants failed to submit merits arguments.

• Ouster Of Jurisdiction
• Access To Court
• Expropriation Of Property
• Admissibility Requirements
• Locus Standi
• Exhaustion Of Local Remedies

Nyumba ya Chuma Ltd Vs Uganda Land Commission & Anor (Consitutional Petition No. 13 of 2010)

Nyumba ya Chuma Ltd Vs Uganda Land Commission & Anor (Consitutional Petition No. 13 of 2010) [2015] UGCA 182 (9 December 2015)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Consitutional Petition No. 13 of 2010

The court held that the petition raised constitutional interpretation issues, but found the Uganda Land Commission acted within its mandate over government land and dismissed the petition.

• Allocation Of Land
• Government Land Management
• District Land Board Powers
• Expropriation Of Property
• Leasehold And Freehold Titles
• Constitutional Interpretation

Pyrali Abdul v Sibo (Consitutional Petition 9 of 1997)

Pyrali Abdul v Sibo (Consitutional Petition 9 of 1997) [1998] UGCC 3 (23 June 1998)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Consitutional Petition 9 of 1997

Judge

Manyindo, DCJ, Mpagi-Bahigeine, JCC, Berko, JCC, Engwau,JCC, Twinomujuni, JCC

The Constitutional Court held that the Expropriated Properties Act, 1982, to the extent that it nullifies the sale of the suit property to the defendant and deprives him of his proprietary interest, does not contravene the Constitution of Uganda and is not null and void. The Court reasoned that the Act was enacted to return expropriated properties to their original owners and provides for compensation and access to court, thus meeting the requirements of both the 1967 and 1995 Constitutions. While the compensation formula in section 11(4) of the Act may not guarantee adequate compensation as…

Source excerpt

• Expropriation Of Property
• Compulsory Acquisition
• Compensation For Deprivation
• Restitution Of Property
• Bona Fide Purchaser
• Interpretation Of Existing Law

Mukisa Foods Limited v East African Development Bank

Mukisa Foods Limited v East African Development Bank (Civil Suit 615 of 1992) [1995] UGHC 66 (14 November 1995)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 615 of 1992

Judge

Mukanza, J

The court found that the plaintiff's property was indeed subject to expropriation under the relevant decrees and the Expropriated Properties Act 1982. The management and subsequent encumbrance of the property, including the loan from the defendant bank, were authorised by the board appointed by the government, which acted as the shareholder during the period of expropriation. The plaintiff, upon repossession, was required to accept the property subject to existing encumbrances, including the mortgage held by the defendant bank. The court rejected the argument that the loan was unauthorised, n…

Source excerpt

• Expropriation Of Property
• Company Directors Authority
• Mortgage And Encumbrances
• Repossession Of Assets
• Government Guarantees
• Registration Of Titles