Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Lule v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2000) [2001] UGCA 49 (12 September 2001)
The Court of Appeal partly allowed an appeal over compensation for repossessed property, ordering payment of Ug. Shs.55,952,581 to the appellant.
Kisugu Quarries Ltd v Administrator General (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1998) [1999] UGSC 40 (5 January 1999)
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
R. M. Patel and Others v Attorney General and Others (Civil Suit 54 of 1995) [1998] UGHCLD 2 (4 August 1998)
The court held that the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (DAPCB) had no legal authority under the Expropriated Properties Act to receive or reject applications for repossession of expropriated property, as such powers are vested exclusively in the Minister. All transactions involving the suit property prior to the coming into force of the Act were nullified, and the property reverted to Government. The plaintiffs' suit, brought as an original action against the DAPCB and other defendants, was misconceived and incompetent, as any challenge to the Minister's issuance of a certificate of…
Source excerpt
Registered Trustees of Kampala Insitute v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 1996) (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 1996) [1998] UGHC 9 (27 July 1998)
The High Court allowed an appeal over refusal of a repossession certificate and ordered the Minister to issue it, holding the re-entry of the property was null and void.
Makerere Properties Limited v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 36 of 1996) [1998] UGCA 40 (1 June 1998)
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in upholding the Minister of Finance's refusal to issue a repossession certificate to the appellant. The evidence established that the suit property, expropriated in 1972, was never lawfully returned to the appellant company but was instead wrongfully returned to an individual director, S. A. Pirani, who acted fraudulently. The subsequent transfer to M. R. Karia was also tainted by fraud. Both the purported return and the transfer occurred between 1973 and 21st February 1983 and were therefore nullified by section 1(2)(a) of the Expropriated…
Source excerpt
Aida Mbwali v Aruindbhai Popat (CIVIL SUIT NO. 19/94) [1996] UGHCCD 1 (29 April 1996)
The court found that the suit property was validly transferred by Khimji Jethwabhai Tailor to the plaintiff before his departure, supported by credible evidence and the absence of fraud. The property was not subject to the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board Decree or the Expropriated Properties Act, as proper arrangements for its management were made and it was never lawfully vested in the government. The marriage between Khimji and the plaintiff was held valid under Hindu custom and law, and the plaintiff was entitled to protection as a registered owner. The repossession certificate is…
Source excerpt
Bemba and Another v Victoria Tea Estates (Civil Appeal 821 of 1991) [1996] UGHCLD 4 (1 April 1996)
The High Court held that a repossession certificate did not revive a lease already terminated for non-payment of rent. The defendant’s occupation was trespass.
Sadrudin Dhamji Sayani v Mpresse Nsubuga (Civil Application 10 of 1995) [1995] UGSC 34 (11 May 1995)
The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient reason for not lodging the notice of appeal within the prescribed time. The explanations provided, including the court vacation and the need for a typed judgment, were not persuasive, especially given the simplicity of the notice of appeal and the applicant's presence at judgment delivery. The absence of supporting documents, such as extracts of the judgment or the letter of repossession, further weakened the application. The court reaffirmed that blunders by an advocate do not automatically justify extension of time and that each case must be as…
Source excerpt
