Uganda Case Law

Attorney General v Virchand Mithalal & Sons Ltd

Attorney General v Virchand Mithalal & Sons Ltd [2009] UGSC 13 (21 April 2009)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

The Supreme Court held that the award of compound interest was not justified by the facts or law. There was no evidence that the government misused or profited from the compensation sum owed to the respondent, nor was there any agreement or legal principle implying compound interest in this context. The distinction between simple and compound interest is substantive: simple interest is awarded for delay in payment of a debt, while compound interest requires evidence of misuse or enrichment by the liable party. The lower courts erred in treating the award of compound interest as a matter of di…

Source excerpt

• Interest Awards
• Compensation For Expropriation
• Court Discretion On Interest
• Fiduciary Duties
• Repossession Claims

Read case analysis

Jayantilal C. Patel v Attorney General

Jayantilal C. Patel v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No.95 of 2000) (Miscellaneous Application No.95 of 2000) [2005] UGHC 9 (12 July 2005)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No.95 of 2000

The High Court of Uganda held that the appellant was entitled to compensation for expropriated property, not repossession, and awarded UGX 500 million plus costs and interest.

• Expropriated Properties
• Repossession Claims
• Compensation For Expropriation
• Ministerial Decision Review
• Expropriated-properties
• Repossession-claims

Read case analysis