EXPROPRIATED PROPERTY

• The first stage of the expropriation was the

expulsion of the non-citizens Asians from Uganda on
9th September 1972.
• A decree was published to cancel entry permits or
certificates of any person of Asian origin, extraction
or descent.
• Persons who had to leave Uganda due to cancellation
of their entry permits were prohibited from
transferring or mortgaging their immovable property
Management of Expropriated Property

• Under S.1(1) of the Assets of Departed Asians

(ADAA) Act Cap 83, every departed Asian was
obliged to declare his or her assets and
liabilities on the forms specified in the
schedule to the Act.
• The forms had to be accompanied by a list of
title deeds, debentures, loan agreements and
contracts or other agreements entered into by
the departing Asians.
 Cont’d
• Assets declared by a departing asian vested in the
government. (S.3 ADAA)
• All assets and liabilities vested in the government
by virtue of S.6 of the ADAA were transferred to
the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board.
• The board was a body corporate with perpetual
succession and a common seal with capacity to
sue and be sued in its corporate name. S. 4(3)
 Cont’d
• The board was mandated to do the following: (S.
6)
1. Take over and manage all assets transferred to
it.
2. To discharge all the liabilities transferred to it
by the decree.
3. To discharge mortgages or other debts owed
by a departed Asian in relation to expropriated
property.
 Cont’d
• To collect all debts or other monies due to
the departed Asian.
• To sell or otherwise deal with assets in the
same way that a departed Asian would do.
 Reversing the Expropriation
• Upon the fall of Idi Amin’s regime in 1979,
foreign governments whom post- Amin regime
looked for donor support to re-build the
ruined economy called upon the government
in Uganda to redress the wrongful
expropriation of Asian properties in 1972.
The Expropriated Properties Act, 1982

• The purpose of the Act was: “To provide for

the transfer of the properties and businesses
acquired or otherwise expropriated during
the millitary regime to the Ministry of
Finance and to provide for their return to
their former owners or disposal of the same
by the government.”
 Cont’d
• In the case of Registered Trustees of Kampala
Institute v DAPCB SCCA No. 21/1993 court
stated that “This is a remedial statute aimed
at putting right what the legislation in 1982
thought had been unfortunately decreed or
done. It was aiming at returning property to
the former owners. Such an Act should be
given a liberal interpretation.”
 To which property did the Act apply?

• S.2(1) provides for the property or business to

which the Act applies.
I. Properties vested in the government and
transferred to the Departed Asians Property
Custodian Board
II. Properties Acquired by the government
under the Properties and
Business( Acquisition) Decree, 1975.
 Cont’d
• Property in any other way appropriated or
taken over by the millitary regime.
• Lutaaya v H.G Gandesha & Anor High Court
Civil Suit 860 of 1982,[ 1986] HCB 46
Re-vesting of property to the government
and nullification of dealings
• All property vested in the government under
the ADAA or in any other way appropriated or
taken over by the millitary regime was re-
vested in the government to be managed by
the ministry of finance.
• S.2(2)a nullified all purchases, transfers and
grants of or any dealings of whatever kind in
such properties.
 Cont’d
• Jaffer Brothers v Mohammed Magid
Bagalaliwo CACA 43/1997
• Gokaldas Laximadas Tanna v Sister Muyinza
& Anor SCCA No. 12/1992
• Victoria Tea Estates v James Bemba CACA
49/1996
• Onapa v Punjani [1996] 2 KALR 87
• Stephen Kalani v Santwant Kaur SCCA 1996
 Cont’d
• Arvindbhai Popat v Aida Mbwali [1977] KALR
429
 Cont’d
• Under S.2(2) EPA expired or terminated leases
were deemed to have continued in force and
to continue until the property was dealt with
under the Act.
• This nullification interfered with lawful
transactions that had been concluded by the
Departed Asians Custodian Board in respect of
these properties.
 Cont’d
• Purchases or leases or surrenders effected by the
board were nullified.
• Re-entries by lessors on expropriated leases were
also nullified and such forfeited leases reinstated.
• The nullification was intended to be retrospective i.e
to affect any dealings that had taken place before the
Expropriated Properties Act,1982.
• Bidandi Ssali v Attorney General CS NO. 834 of 1989
 Dealings by the minister
• The expropriated property re-vested in the
government and had to remain so vested
until the minister dealt with them in any of
the following ways:
1. Return to former owners (s.3(1)
Procedure to follow is provided for under
s.4,s.3(2),s.6 (1)
 Cont’d
• Mabale Growers Tea Factory Ltd v Noorali
Mohamed & Registrar of Titles HCCS No.
0065 /2006. Court held that the 90 days time
frame for applying for repossession was
merely regulatory. Court re-echoed that EPA is
a noble and laudable legislation enacted for
rectification hence in construing its provisions
one needs to adopt a liberal approach.
 Cont’d
• The Minister by General Notice No.20 of 1993
issued in the Uganda Gazette vol. LXXXXVI of
13.5.93 with S.I No.1 of 1994 extended the
deadline for lodging applications to 30.10.93.
• This extension was held legitimate by the
Court of Appeal in Jaffer Brothers Ltd v
Bagalaliwo Civil Appeal No.43 of 1997.
 Cont’d
2. Joint venture between the government and
former owner ( s.5)
3. Sale by the minister ( s. 9(1)
4. Disposal by any other manner
 Proof of ownership
• The former owner had to prove that he had
legal or equitable interest in the property at
the time of the 1972 expropriation.
• Onapa v Punjani [1996] 2 KALR 87
• Stephen Kalani v Santwant Kaur SCCA 1996
• Jaffer Alibhai and 2 others v Nandala H Kaira
and another Civil appeal No.53/1995
 Dealing with incumbered properties
• Where property applied for is subject to a caveat ,
lien, charge or mortgage in favour of any lender,
the minister must first hold consultations with the
former owner and the lender with a view to
securing a mutually acceptable arrangement for
the discharge of such an encumbrance. (s.6)
• Where no such arrangement is reached, then the
minister is empowered to make such arrangement
as he deems fit.
 Present tenants
• S.10 EPA
 Compensation
• S.12 EPA
 Appeals
• S.15 EPA
• Emmanuel Nangoli v AG [200] KALR 817. Court
held that a person who wishes to challenge the
minister’s decision could do so within 30 days
from the date of the communication of the
minister’s decision to him or her to the High
Court.
• Ravji Meghji Patel &2 0thers v AG & Anor
CACA No. 16/1999
 Cont’d
• Habre International Co. Ltd v Ebrahim
Alarakia Kassam SCCA No. 4/199 court held
that the minister’s powers under the Act are
merely administrative in nature. The Act does
not take away the High Court’s original
jurisdiction and a person can contest a
minister’s decision in the High Court even
after 30 days have elapsed.