[1992] UGHC 16

[1992] UGHC 16

The court found that the plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the suit land, having succeeded his father and holding a valid certificate of title. The lease to the Asian companies was valid, and rents were paid for the first 25 years. Upon the expulsion of the Asian lessees, the property was abandoned, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1992] UGHC 16
Parties
Plaintiff: Daudi C. Manyindo; Defendant: Departed Asians Property Custodian Board; Defendant: Mary Hall
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Suit No. DR. MFP 18/90
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
judgment_for_plaintiff
Legal Topics
Leasehold Title, Re Entry Rights, Statutory Corporations, Allocation of Property, Registration of Titles, Expulsion of Asians
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Leasehold Title Re Entry Rights Statutory Corporations Allocation of Property Registration of Titles Expulsion of Asians

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daudi C. Manyindo

Plaintiff

Departed Asians Property Custodian Board

Defendant

Mary Hall

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of Burahya Block 31 plot 2 land at Bulyambuzi.
  2. 2 Whether the lease to Jeraj Sons Ltd and Karmal Rashid Ltd for 99 years was valid and rents paid for the first 25 years.
  3. 3 Whether the lessees abandoned the property and if the plaintiff was entitled to re-entry.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the suit land, having succeeded his father and holding a valid certificate of title. The lease to the Asian companies was valid, and rents were paid for the first 25 years. Upon the expulsion of the Asian lessees, the property was abandoned, and the plaintiff was entitled to exercise his right of re-entry due to non-payment of rent, failure to use the land for its intended agricultural purpose, and abandonment. The court held that the property never vested in the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board, as the plaintiff was an indigenous Ugandan, and the Board had no title to transfer to the second defendant. The...

Court Disposition

judgment_for_plaintiff

Orders

  • Declaration that the lease of the suit property never passed to the first defendant.
  • Declaration that the allocation of the suit property to the second defendant was unlawful and ineffectual.