AG blocks giveaway of departed Asian property
Mr William Byaruhanga
The Attorney General (AG) has blocked a plot to double-allocate one of the disputed departed Asian properties.
In his legal opinion, Mr William Byaruhanga said the Finance minister or Lands minister has no power to cancel a title that was issued under the Departed Asian Act, only court can do that.
Mr Byaruhanga said a person aggrieved by the minister’s decision under the Act may appeal to the High Court.
“I am also unable to construe from the Act that the minister retained any implied power to revoke his decision on the ground that it was made in error. In my view, to do so would perpetuate the very uncertainties about ownership of expropriated properties, which the Act was intended to eliminate,” reads part of the August 15 opinion to the minister Matia Kasaija.
However, the minister said if the former owner fails to physically return and reside in Uganda within 120 days from the date of authorisation, the minister may make an order that the property or business be retained by government or be sold as provided in the Act.
Mr Byaruhanga said he received an August 1 letter from the executive director of the Departed Asians’ Property Custodian Board (DAPCB) seeking a legal opinion about Plot No.98-104 Nakivubo Road, Kampala LRV 646 Folio 12.
Earlier, Mr George William Bizibu, the DAPCB secretary, had asked to know the status of the land.
Mr Byaruhanga said the plot was one of the properties left behind by the departed Asians in 1972 following the expulsion of Asians from Uganda by president Idi Amin.
As a result, all the properties belonging to the departed Asians were vested in DAPCB.
He said at the time of expropriation, the property was registered in the names of two companies; Parkview Limited and Bharat Properties Limited as tenants in equal share.
“Following the enactment of the Expropriated Properties Act, several letters were written by persons purporting to be shareholders in Parkview Limited and Bharat properties limited wherein some sought for compensation since they were not interested in returning to Uganda while others sought to repossess the property,” Mr Byaruhanga added.
He said there is evidence that the property was transferred back to the former owners and no evidence of compensation.
“N.K Radia purporting to act for the two companies wrote to the executive secretary of the custodian board on March 31, 1992, enclosing documents in support of the application to repossess the property,” he said.
On April 11, 1992, DAPCB task force wrote to the executive secretary of the custodian board clearing the property for repossession.
The then DAPCB executive secretary on April 16, 1992, wrote in turn to the then Minister of Finance informing him to issue a letter of repossession.
The Minister of Finance then informed Parkview and Bharat on April 21, 1992, that they were free to repossess the property effective from the date of the letter.
