Uganda Case Law

Lubega & Anor v Luwero Town Council & Anor

Lubega & Anor v Luwero Town Council & Anor (Civil Suit No. 193 of 2009) [2013] UGHCLD 51 (30 May 2013)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit No. 193 of 2009

Judge

Tuhaise, J

The court found that the preliminary objection raised by the plaintiffs was based on disputed facts regarding the existence of a written agreement and ministerial consent for the transaction involving the suit land. The objection required the court to ascertain facts and consider extrinsic evidence, which is not permissible at the stage of a preliminary objection. The court emphasized that a preliminary objection must be based on a pure point of law arising from the pleadings and, if upheld, should dispose of the entire suit. In this case, the objection did not meet these criteria, as the fac…

Source excerpt

• Ministerial Consent Requirement
• Equitable Interest In Land
• Preliminary Objection
• Pleadings And Material Facts
• Contract Formality In Land Transactions

Kisugu Quarries Limited v Administrator General

Kisugu Quarries Limited v Administrator General (Civil Appeal 10 of 98) [1999] UGSC 28 (5 October 1999)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 10 of 98

Judge

Oder, JSC, Karokora, JSC, Mulenga, JSC, Kanyeihamba, JSC, Mukasa-Kikonyogo, JSC

The Supreme Court held that a 1970 lease to a non-African company was void for lack of ministerial consent and that repossession under the Expropriated Properties Act could not validate it.

• Ministerial Consent Requirement
• Invalidity Of Lease
• Expropriated Properties Act Application
• Repossession Certificate Effect
• Burden Of Proof
• Illegal Contracts

Kisugu Quarries Ltd v Administrator General

Kisugu Quarries Ltd v Administrator General (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1998) [1999] UGSC 40 (5 January 1999)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1998

Judge

Oder, JSC, Karokora, JSC, Mulenga, JSC, Kanyeihamba, JSC, Mukasa-Kikonyogo, JSC

The Supreme Court held that the lease executed in 1970 in favour of Kisugu Quarries Ltd, a non-African company, was null and void ab initio for lack of ministerial consent as required by Section 2 of the Land Transfer Act. The subsequent issuance of a repossession certificate under the Expropriated Properties Act did not and could not validate the void lease, as there was no legal interest to repossess. The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that ministerial consent had been obtained, and the evidence presented was speculative, contradictory, and insufficient. The court…

Source excerpt

• Ministerial Consent Requirement
• Invalidity Of Lease
• Expropriated Properties Act Application
• Burden Of Proof
• Repossession Certificate
• Mailo Land Ownership