Court orders Land Commission to issue title for Kabale govt house
The judge also ruled that if the Government wants to take the property for use by Kabale Regional Hospital, the administrators of Bekiita’s estate must first be compensated in accordance with the Constitution.
Court orders Land Commission to issue title for Kabale govt house
_________________
The High Court in Kabale has ordered the Uganda Land Commission to complete the processing and hand over a certificate of title for a government house in Kabale to the administrators of the estate of the late Martha Bekiita.
Justice Karoli Lwanga Ssemogerere ruled that Bekiita had paid the full sh7 million purchase price for the house and was entitled to the property.
The judge also ruled that if the Government wants to take the property for use by Kabale Regional Hospital, the administrators of Bekiita’s estate must first be compensated in accordance with the Constitution.
The judgment arose from a long-running dispute over Plot 1B Buningo Road, Kabale, which was initially allocated to Bekiita and Rugwisa as a former government pool house.
A government pool house was a house allocated to public servants under the Government housing scheme.
Bekiita had sued the Attorney General and Uganda Land Commission, seeking specific performance or, alternatively, compensation for the house, general damages, exemplary damages and costs.
The court heard that on March 23, 1995, Bekiita and Rugwisa were allocated the property by the Public Service Sale House Committee of the Uganda Land Commission in conjunction with Housing Finance Company of Uganda.
According to court documents, on September 15, 1995, Bekiita deposited sh500,000, representing 8% of the purchase price, in accordance with the terms of sale.
The court further heard that in February 1996, the Sale Committee wrote to the Kabale chief administrative officer seeking clarification on whether the property was a government pool house or an institutional house belonging to Kabale Regional Hospital.
The CAO responded that the property was outside the hospital land and had been constructed before the hospital.
The Sale Committee subsequently instructed the Commissioner for Surveys and Mapping to survey the plot, which was done.
However, on July 12, 2001, the Uganda Land Commission withdrew the offer and authorised a refund of the money Bekiita had paid.
According to the judgment, Bekiita and her successors challenged the withdrawal, maintaining that she was entitled to the property after complying with the terms of sale.
Following the notice, Bekiita paid the outstanding balance, bringing the total amount paid for the property to Sh7m.
Housing Finance Bank confirmed the full payment to the secretary of the Uganda Land Commission on August 28, 2007.
On October 22, 2007, the secretary of the commission instructed the Commissioner for Surveys and Mapping to prepare deed plans in Bekiita’s favour.
However, on February 7, 2008, the Medical Superintendent of Kabale Hospital wrote to Bekiita informing her that the property belonged to Kabale Regional Hospital.
Bekiita subsequently sued the Attorney General and the Uganda Land Commission.
In their defence, the Attorney General’s office stated that the house sold to Bekiita was an institutional house and that the offer had been withdrawn by the Uganda Land Commission.
The Attorney General also stated that the commission was willing to compensate Bekiita.
The Government further argued that the newspaper notice published in 2006 had been erroneously published by Housing Finance Bank.
The dispute continued after the Attorney General wrote to Bekiita in November 2008, informing her that an alternative property, Plot 8B Archer Road, Kabale, had been identified.
Bekiita rejected the alternative property offer through her lawyers and requested a lump sum payment of sh69 million or sh54.8 million together with the alternative property.
Further correspondence between the parties continued until March 2011, when Bekiita’s lawyers withdrew an earlier acceptance of the compensation offer.
In the High Court proceedings, the parties framed three issues, including whether Bekiita’s estate was entitled to specific performance for the transfer of the property and, alternatively, compensation.
Justice Ssemogerere found that the commission had been duly served with the summons and plaint on July 14, 2008, but did not file a defence.
The judge said correspondence between the Attorney General’s office and the Uganda Land Commission showed that the two institutions had been in regular contact over the dispute.
However, he held that this did not absolve the commission of its responsibility to enter a defence.
The court further noted that the Uganda Land Commission is a body corporate under Section 47(2) of the Land Act and can sue or be sued in its corporate name.
Justice Ssemogerere therefore found that there had been a default by the commission in appearing and defending the suit.
The judge said the evidence on record showed that Bekiita had been allocated the property and had paid the full consideration of sh7 million following a demand raised on behalf of the Uganda Land Commission through Housing Finance Bank.
The court consequently ordered the Uganda Land Commission to complete the processing and hand over a certificate of title for the property to the administrators of Bekiita’s estate.
It also issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from evicting the plaintiffs or interfering with their quiet possession of the property.
Justice Ssemogerere further ruled that if the Government is interested in the property for use by Kabale Regional Hospital, the plaintiffs must first be compensated in accordance with Article 26(2) of the Constitution.
The judge found that the withdrawal of the offer of sale and the subsequent demand that Bekiita vacate the property violated her constitutional right to property.
The court also held that the refund offered to Bekiita after her proposed reallocation to Plot 8B Archer Road did not satisfy the constitutional requirement for prompt and fair compensation where property is compulsorily acquired.
The court did not, however, determine the claim for general and exemplary damages.
Justice Ssemogerere directed that the claims for damages be heard separately, giving the parties an opportunity to present evidence for or against the claims.
The court awarded the plaintiffs 60% of the taxed costs for the preliminary decree, with 20% to be paid by the Attorney General and 80% by the Uganda Land Commission.