SIR— Your report in the issue of September 29, under the heading “Asian sues Katikkiro,†gave the impression that <br>our client Mr Godfrey Kavuma <br>was involved in a fraudulent acquisition of property.
SIR— Your report in the issue of September 29, under the heading “Asian sues Katikkiro,†gave the impression that our client Mr Godfrey Kavuma was involved in a fraudulent acquisition of property.
The correct position is that Mr Kavuma bought the property in question from the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board in 1990, having been the highest bidder in an auction that had been widely advertised.
Subsequently, however, in 1993 the Minister of Finance issued a certificate of repossession to the former Asian owner and purported to cancel our client’s title.
The issue before the court, therefore, is whether the minister’s action can have the effect of cancelling the title of a bona-fide purchaser for value without notice of any kind.
The impression given in the article that Mr Kavuma was in any way amiss in acquiring the title should be corrected.