Wuma and 2 Others v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Suit 915 of 2017) [2023] UGHCLD 428 (13 October 2023)

Full Case Text

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA

#### **LAND DIVISION**

## **CIVIL SUIT NO. 915 OF 2017**

#### 1. SAMUEL ALFRED WUMA

#### 2. OWORI WILBERFORCE SEDI

# 3. MPANUKA MUSA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

#### **VERSUS**

# UGANDA RAILWAYS CORPORATION:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: **BEFORE HON. JUSTICE JOHN EUDES KEITIRIMA**

#### **JUDGMENT**

1. The Plaintiffs jointly and /or severally broughtr this suit against the defendant for a declaration that they are entitled to be given a first offer to exclusively purchase their respective houses they occupy on **Plot 61 B**, Ismail Road, Mbuya II Parish, Nakawa Division Kampala and hereinafter to as "the suit premises", an order that the defendant offers the Plaintiffs the first option to purchase the houses they occupy, a permanent injunction and general damages.

2. The Plaintiffs cause of action as stated in their Plaint is as follows:

The Plaintiffs are all former employees of the defendant. i.

$m$ etz ma 13/10/m23 Page 1 of 24

'l'he l't plaintiff was employed as a Senior Locomotive Inspecting Officcr, RG 7 and worked I'or the defcndant lrom I 97 6 to 1998, while the 2nd defendant worked as a Scnior Mechanical Forcman RG8 lrom 1979 to 2006 and the 3'd defendant as its Rcgional C.l. D Officcr from 2006.

- ll. That whilst the Plaintiffs were still in employment of the defendant, they resided in houses allocated to them by the dcfendant on the suit premises which they occupy as hercunder; - a) The l'1 Plaintiff was in 2006 allocated Flouse No. MB l. - b) In 1994 thc 2nd dcfcndant was allocated IIouse MB3 and - c) In 2006 thc 3'd dclcndant was allocated Ilouse No. MB4. - That it was the Policy of the defendant that each of its employees who were residing in its houses were to pay rent (housing hctor) deducted monthly by thc defendant from payment of their salary. lll. - That the defendant was privatized under thc Public Enterprise and Divestiturc (PIIRD) Act Cap 84 Laws of Uganda. lv. - 'l'hat after the Privatization of the defcndant's premises thcy were commcrcialized and the sitting tenants at the time cntered into tenancy agrccmcnts with thc dclcndant and started paying rent directly. - That the first and third plaintiffs pay rent for their houses directly to the dcfendant whilc the 2nd Plaintilf pays through deductions of his pension by the defendant. vl.

Os- \ Page 2 of 24 rL\J rD ,.)

That as a way of implementing the programme of Reform and vii. Divestiture of the Public Enterprise Sector which was being implemented under the PERD Act, and as part of the reform of the Railways Sector, the Board of Directors of the defendant and the Divestiture Reform and Implementation Committee designated some of the defendant's premises as non -core properties and approved them for divestiture.

$\pmb{\cdot}$

The first opportunity to purchase the non-core properties as a policy was to be offered to sitting tenants who occupied them across board.

- viii. That the suit premises were among the designated non-core properties for divestiture whose sitting tenants being the Plaintiffs would benefit from the first opportunity to purchase them. - The Plaintiffs contend that under the Privatization Policy the ix. designated non-core premises were only eligible for disposal and could not be dealt within any other way and any decision of the defendant to develop the suit premises is in bad faith and intended to unjustly deny the Plaintiffs their rights. - That the Plaintiffs left the employment of the defendant but $X$ . continued in occupation of their respective houses on the suit premises duly paying rent based on the policy that the defendant would offer the first opportunity to purchase them when it finally decided to dispose of them.

Page 3 of 24

megnma 12/10 m23

- xt. 'l'hat the examples of the dcfcndant's premises which were designated as non- core and in rcspcct of which the policy of affording the first opportunity to purchase was given to sitting tenants who were forme r employees of the defendant and who had lefl its employmenl but continued to occupy them on rental basis werc houses Kl and K2 on Kyadondo Block 207,Plot 36 Kanyanya. A photocopy ol-thc guideline on the malter was attached to the Plaint and markcd as Anncxturc "A". A photocopy olthc offer was marked as Annexture "AA". A photocopy of a letter evidcncing thc oflcr of Plot No. 34 BlizabethAvenue to among others the current Managing Director and other sitting tenants of thc defendanl was marked as Annexlure "AAA". A letter from II. E thc Prcsident of the Republic of lJganda to thc Minister of liinance, Planning and l]conomic Development on the said government Policy was marked as Anncxturc "A, A, A, A". - That thc sitting tcnants in Anncxturc "AA" were cvcn permittcd 1o assign and sold their intercst to a third party as shown in Annexturc "ll" and "BB" of the Plaint. xlt. - That on 15Ih Novemb er 2015 the defendant issue d the I'laintiffs with notices dated l5tl' November 2017 requiring them 1o vacate their houses on the suit premises within thifly days (30 days) from the date of the noticcs on thc prcmiscs that the dclendant required them xlll.

\ Page 4 of 24 yb o \o'e3

for re devclopment. Photocopies of thc notices were collectively marked as annexures "C".

xvi. l'he I'}laintiffs contcnd that in rcspcct of thc houses they occupy on the suit premises there is an implied contract between them and thc dclendant or an cxisting policy ofthe defendant that the defendant shall offer thc houses first to thc Plaintiffs and that thc noticcs to vacate without giving them the first exclusive opportunity is a breach of contract and unjustified and /or wrongful dcviation or breach of the policy which is amenable to the rcliefs being sought.'l'hat with regard to thc I't Plaintill thc notice was unlawful in so far as he is protected from vacating the housc by a temporary injunction that was issued vidc M. A. N0. 21 9 of 2012 as shown in annexlurc "D" of thc Plaint.

xviii. fhe Plaintiffs contend that they have at all material times and are still willing, ready and able to purchase their respectivc houses if they arc offered the opportunity and the defendant has no justification whatsoever to depart from the established policy of offering the suit premises to them first for the purchasc of its contractual obligations.

xix. Thc Plaintifl's furthcr contend that they have resided in their rcspective houses on the suit premises lor a long period, renovatcd, and maintained them in good tcnantable condition ol rcpair under the expectation that thcy would be offered the first opportunity to purchase them and they will not realize their expectations and will suf r

PaEe 5 ot 24 I 15 yP \^\*

inconvenience and loss ifthey are evicted from their houses and that the eviction notices have caused them mental torture, stress, apprehension and anxiety for which they seek for general damages.

- 3. 'fhe Plaintiffs are therefore seeking for the following remedies; - a) A declaration that they are entitled to be given the first opportunity to purchase their respective houses in accordance with the prevailing policy rathcr than be cvicted therefrom. - b) An order that the defendant offers them the first opportunity to purchase their respective houses in accordance with its Policy. - c) A permanent injunction from evicting or threatening them with eviction lrom the suit premises. - d) General damages. - e) Interest on (d) at the rate of 25Yo per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full. - ! Costs. - g) Interests on costs. - 4. In their written statement of defence the defendant states inter alia; - i. That the Plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs sought in paragraph 3 of the Plaint. - ii. The defendant denics that the Plaintiffs have a cause of action as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Plaint. - iii. That the suit is misconceived, vexatious and frivolous.

PaEe 6 of 24

l2,\ 1oVL? \$-1

- iv. That thc 1't and 2'd Plaintiffs are in occupation of the suit property strictly as tenants of the defendant since 2006 and July 2015 rcspectively and in considcration whercol they are obligcd to pay rent to the defendant in the sum of two hundred and forty thousand shillings (240,0001:) per month. - v. That the I't Plaintiff has defaulted on payment of rent to the dcfcndant since April20l I to date. - vi. That whereas the defendant upon the instructions of the 2'd Plaintiff withholds the 2nd Plaintiff s pcnsion of 180,000/: pcr month on account of rent, the same is not enough to settle the entire monthly rent of 240,0001: and the 2'd Plaintiff has accordingly since his occupalion of the suit property in July 2015 defaulted on rent payment to date. - vii. Ihat the defcndant has never allocated thc 3'd Plaintiffany tenancy a1 the suit prope(y and neither has he ever paid any rent to the defendant and hcnce the 3'd Plaintiff is a trespasser and has no right whalsocver in regard to thc suit properly. - viii. Thc defendant contcnds that he has never cxpressly or impliedly agreed with the Plaintiffs to grant thcm offers to purchasc its properly and dcnies any express or implied contract to thc said effect or any breach ofcontract or policy as alleged. - ix. The defendant contends that it has no legal obligation or mandate to make any offers to the Plaintiffs for purchase of the suit properly.

n-a'>9 l'1- 1o \

PaEe 7 of 24

- x. The defendant contends that as a proprietor of the suit premises, it has a constilutional right to enjoy its property and the power /right to terminate the tenancies thereof or to demand that the Plaintiffs vacate the samc and that the defendant excrciscd its lcgal right by rcquesting thc Plainliffs to vacatc its property. - xi. That without prejudice to the foregoing, the defendant acknowledges that the notice to the l't Plaintiff rcquiring him to vacate the suit premiscs by 151h December 2017 was premature in view of the subsistence of the temporary injunction vide M. A No. 219 of 2012 arising out of H. C. C. S No. 147 of 2011. - xii. Ihe defendant contcnds that the 1'1 Plaintiffs suit herein is an abuse of Courl process and the samc should be dismissed on grounds that thcy ought to have sought thc remcdics hcrein in thc said H. C. C. S No. 147 of2011. - xiii. That it is only the Government through thc Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Developmcnt and the Privatization Unit that holds the legal mandate to make any decisions regarding the disposal ofthe defendant's assets and as such has since been stopped by the Governmcnl. Thc defendant attached copics to that effect which werc markcd as "UI{Cl" and "IJRC2" respcctively. - xiv. The defendant dcnies any alleged repair ol the suit premises by thc Plaintiffs or any alleged expectations on the part of the Plaintiffs and

Page 8 of 24 \? qo ry L,1 the defendant denics that thc Plaintiffs arc cntitlcd to any alleged general damages.

'I'he defendant prays that the Plaintiffs suit be dismisscd with costs.

5. In reply to the amended Plaint the defendant contends that the amended Plaint is not relevant to the Plaintiffs whose claim arises under a property subject to the provisions of the Public Enterprises and Divestiture Act Cap 87.

6. The defendant further contcnds that without Prejudice to the foregoing, the Plaintiffs would not qualify as "sitting tenants" the 1'1 and 2nd dcfendants having defaulted on rent payment and the 3'd Plaintiff having never been allocated the premises in dispute.

7. The defendant fu(her contends that Annexture "AAAA" to the amended Plaint is not relevant to the Plaintiffs case as the property referred to in the said annexture belongs to Nalional IJousing and Construction Corporation and not the defendant.

8. the defcndant contends that the government policy rcgarding the disposal offany ofthe defendant's properlies is independent /distinct and has since changed to the effect that the property in dispute is no longer available for sale as shown in Annexures "UIIC l" and "URC 2" which are attached to the defendant's written statement of defence.

9. The de fendant reiterated its prayer that the Plaintiffs' suit be dismissed with costs.

Page 9 of 24

l3 r70 t- -/ (' ),"1

lO. In their rcjoinder to the written statement of defence the plaintiffs stated inter alia; -

- i. l'hat the 1't Plaintiff paid the relevant rent up to June 201 I not April 2011 and even then contrary to the dcfcndant's Staff I{ules and Regulations 1994 Section 15 (a) which exemptcd an employce ol' the defendant from paying rent to the defendant. That the 1't Plaintiff was fufther restrained from paying rent by rcason of a temporary injunction order vide M. A No. 2018 of 2012 arising from H. C. C. S No. 147 of 2011 (Civil Division) which is still in lbrcc. - ii. l'he Plaintiffs statcd in thc alternativc but without prcjudice to the loregoing that il'thcrc is any rent owing lrom the I't Plaintiff to thc defendant it is capable of being offset by the compensation he is seeking in the pending H. C. C. S No. 147 of 2017. - iii. That with rcgard to the 2'd Plaintifl; hc was initially in 2009 allocated House No. MB4 and paid shs. 200,000/: as rent pcr month until April 2010 when the rcnt was incrcascd to Shs. 240,0001: per month which he also paid although the defendant did not occupy it at any onc time. That thc 2"d Plaintilf was allocated and occupied Housc no. MB3 in issue in this suit in July 2015 and continued to pay rent thercol'through deductions of his monthly pcnsion to date. - iv. The 2nd Plaintiff further contends that the rent hc paid from September 2009 to June 2015 for house No. MB3 is more than sufficient rent paid for house No. MB3 to his crcdit.

\L 1o 2-3 fv- Page 10 of 24

fhat the 3'd Plaintiff was allowed to occupy House No. MB4 when he joined the defendantin2006 as its regional C.l. D Officer and has been residing in the house since thcn and paying rcnt. 'l'hat the delbndant was therefore estopped from dcnying his tenancy. Samples of the receipts were attached and markcd as Annexure "PI{A 4".

A photocopy of the lcttcr to thc dcfendant informing it that the 2nd Plaintiff never occupied Ilouse No. MB4 but paid rent for it was attached and marked as "Annexure PR A 5".

- The Plaintiffs contend that since the defendant does not countcr claim against them any money for rent, it is a tacit admission that no rent is outstanding from them. vl. - In thc alternalive but without prejudice to the foregoing the subject cviction notices which triggcred thc Plaintiffs suit did not mention failure to pay rcnt as rcason for their issue and they contend that raising it at this slage is not only late and an afterthought but in bad faith which should be disregarded. vlt. - The Plaintiffs contend that the delendant is bound by Govcrnmenl and its own policy and ought to implement the policy lawfully without discrimination against thc Plaintiffs. vlll. - The Plaintifl's lurther contcnd that the cause of action in rcspect of the suit arose on the datc of rcccipt of notices of cviction as shown in "Annexurc A" to thc amended Plaint and accordingly hc could tx.

Page tl of 24 \5 1o \'l^ L> I <.

not have sought thc remedies in this suit in Civil Suit No. 147 of 2011.

- x. The I'laintiffs lurlher contend that "Annextures "URC l" and "URC 2" were not notified to them and do not in any way amount to change and /or repudiation and /or stopping of the policy of disposing of the suit properties to thcm as sitting tenants. Furthcr that annexture "AAA" to thc amcnded plaint is relevant to thc cxtcnt that the policy pleaded covered all government privatized corporations, the dcfendant and othcrs wcrc and the avcrmcnt by thc defcndant that thc suit propcrtics wcrc not availablc for salc any longcr was a ploy to defeat the Plaintiffs legitimate rights and entitlements which is discriminatory, unjust and illegal. - xi. That the Plaintiffs havc a lcgitimate cxpcctation arising out of thc pleaded indiscriminate policy and are entitled to the reliefs sought.

Il. 'l'hc lollowing issues were raised for dctermination during the schedul ing conlcrcncc; -

- l. Whcthcr the 3'd Plaintiff is a formcr employcc of the del'endant. - 2. Whcther thc Plaintiffs havc a causc of action against thc del'endant. - 3. Whether the suit is misconccived, vexatious and frivolous. - 4. Whethcr thc Plaintiffs arc sitting tenants of the dcfendant. - 5. Whcthcr therc exists a government policy giving the Plaintiffs the first right ofrcfusal in rcspcct ofthe suit houses thcy occupy.

a4' 1b PaEe L2 of 24 0

6. If so whcthcr the eviction notices havc the effcct of unfairly and /or wrongfully denying the PlaintilT of thc said right.

7. Rcmedics availablc to thc partics.

12.'l'he parties procccdcd by way of witncss statcmcnts from which they were cross examined. 'l'he cvidence is on record and which I will rely on in dctcrmining this suit.'l'hc parlies also filed written submissions thc dctails of which are on record and which I have relied on to dctermine this casc.

I will resolve the issues in thc ordcr the plaintil'ls submittcd on thcm.

## Issue 2:

Whcthcr thc Plaintiffs havc a cause of action against thc dcfcndant.

Issue 3:

Whether the suit is misconceived, vexatious and frivolous.

## Submissions of Plaintiffs on issucs 2 & 3.

13.'l'he I'laintifls citcd thc casc of Generol parts (U) ltd versus Middle Nortlt Agencies ltd and another -H. C. C. S no. 610 oJ'2013 (Commercial Division) consolidated witlt micldle Nortlt Agencies ltd versus New Uganda Securicor ltd whcrc it was hcld citing with approval Odgers principles of pleadings and practice in Civil Actions oJ'tlte High Court of Justice 22"d Edition page 148 and Ll/inbckversus Maloney fi9651 2 AU ER 871 and AG versus Olwoch ll972l I EA 392 at 394 whcre it was

Page 13 of 24

/1 l2 o L 7 <-

held that an application to reject thc plaint on grounds of being liivolous or vexatious and lor lack ofcause ofaction relicd on the facts pleaded and no evidence is admissible, one only looks ordinarily at the Plaint and assumes that the facts alleged in it are true.

l4. That the said casc cited with approval the casc of Jeraj Shuriff & Co. versus Cltetai Fancy Stores ll960l I E. A 374 whcrc it was held that,"the question wlretlter u plaint discktses u cause of action must be determined upon a perusul ot'the plaint ulone together with anything attaclted so as to form part of il, und upon tlre assumption tltst any express or implied allegations of .fact in it ure true".

15.'I'he Plaintiffs submitted that the defendant did no1 plcad in its defence any lacts thal rcnder the plaint vcxatious or frivolous or that it lacks lcgal basis on merit, is malafidc and mercly brought to annoy or embarrass the dclendant and that the dcfcndant did not plcad any I'acts to prove that thc plaintifls did not have a causc of action againsl it.

16.'l'he Plaintiffs contended that they plcaded that thcre existed a policy of Governmcnt to the cffect that the suit property which is one of those properties of the defendant designated as non core would be sold off and sitting tenants like them would be given the first option to purchase the propefty.

17.'l'hat such a policy had been implementcd by the dclcndant in rcspect of other similar propertics by selling thcm to sitting tenants. l'hat in

Page !4 of 24

tb\lo )-3

rcspect of the Plaintiffs, the defendant instead of applying the policy, discriminated against thcm by purporting to evict thcm lrom thc suit property in which thcy wcre sitting tenants thereby violating their right to bc offered the samc lor purchasc.

18. fhe Plaintiffs further submitted that they suffered prejudice at the hands of the defendant and hence the said elements disclosed a cause of action. The Plaintiffs cited the case of Auto Garage versus MotoKov (No. 3) 1971 E. A 514 nt page 519 whcrc it was held that "lf a Plaint shows that a plaintiff enjoyed a right, that the right has been violated, that the defcndant is liable, then a cause of action is disclosed and any omission or dcfect may be cured by amendment".

Ihe Plaintiffs contended that they have a cause of action and the suit is not misconceived, vexatious or frivolous.

## Submissions by the defendant on issues 2 and 3.

20. Thc defcndants submitted on the said issues as preliminary points of law. Ihe defendanl citcd thc case of Attorney General versus Duvid Tinyefuza S. C. C. A No. I of 1997 at page I8 where it was held that a causc of action is every fact which if traverscd it would bc necessary lor the Plaintiff to prove in ordcr to support his right to a judgment of the Cour1.

21.'l'hc defendant also cited the case of Auto garsge versus Moto Kov l197ll E. A page 514 at page 5I to buttrcss thcir submissions.'l'he

Page 15 of 24

\b \,/,, \'y"\* ('

defcndant also cited the case Pragul Chundra. Pstel versus Abbas Manafwa and 3 otlters H. C. C. A No. 13 of 2015 which cited with approval the cuse of Kapeka Coffee Works Ltd Versus NPART - C. A. C. A No. 3 of 200 where it was held that in detcrmining whether a Plaint discloses a causc olaction, the Courl must only look at the Plaint and its annextures if any and nowherc clsc.

22.1-he defendant contcndcd that thc lacts pleadcd as wcll as Annexturcs attached if any must be lookcd at together to ascertain if the Plaintiff has a cause of action. The defendant further submitted that the Plaintiff rightly rcltrecd to ll/indham JA's decision at page 375 in Jeraj Shariff & Co. Versus Chetai Fancy Stores [19601 1 E. A 374 which supportcd the dcfendant's case and which emphasizes that the plaintiffs have neither discloscd a causc of action in thc plaint nor in the attachmenls accompanying it.

23. That apaft lrom the rcfcrcnce to the proof rclicd upon by the plaintiffs in paragraph 4, page 3 of the plaintiffs' submissions that there existed a policy of Government to the effect that the suit properly was designated as a non core asset and would be sold ol'f with the first offer being to the sitting tenants, there is no proof that in fact that this offcr was made by the defendant.

24.'I'he defendant lurthcr submitted that in their submission's clcarly statc that "'Ihe Plaintiffs plcadcd that there existed a policy ol'govcrnment ----

Page 16 of 24

\b p Q"L7 o^a -"which implies that they have always been aware of the fact that the policy has since ended in support of the defendant's arguments in paragraph 6 $(K)$ of its written statement of defence and as emphasized by all the defendant's witnesses in their witness statements and hence the plaintiffs have no existing right against the defendant.

25. The defendant contended that under Order 6 Rule 28 of the CPR, S.1 71-1, a point of law may be raised at any point in a trial and can be disposed of at or after the hearing and hence the defendant did not waive its right to plead and prove the preliminary points of law raised in its pleadings just because it was not heard before the hearing as implied by the plaintiffs in their submissions.

26. The defendant contended that the plaintiffs have not proven an existing right or a breach of that right by the defendant in their pleadings. That the claim is based on an implied contract to be given a first offer to exclusively purchase the property; an offer that was discretionary in nature and not even the responsibility of the defendant and hence the plaint was simply frivolous and vexatious.

27. The defendant further contended that it is not liable for implementing the policy by selling the non-core assets to sitting tenants as alleged. The defendant referred to exhibit P.28 which was a letter to offer to purchase of Uganda Railways Corporation Property dated 16th February 2007 where the Privatization Unit under the Ministry of Finance Planning and

Page 17 of 24

$13/10$ 12023

Economic Developmcnt is the body responsiblc for giving the first offers to sitting tcnants to cxclusively purchase the URC property and neither was the defendant copied in the letter.

28. The defendant contcnds that the Plainl and annexturcs do not have anything to show that the defendant was rcsponsible for offering its noncore assets to sitting tenants and in effect, denying to offer the first offer to purchasc the houscs as sitting tenanLs.

29. The dcfendant further submitted that according to Section 5 of the PERD Act, the implementation of the Govemment Policy on reform and divestiture of public enterprises was entrusted with the Committee and they had the mandate to supervisc thc management of the public cntcrpriscs.

30.'Ihe defendant cited Section 4l of the PERD Act.

## Section4l. Primacy of this Act

l) Anything duly done under the aathority of this Actfor the purpose oJ' giving effect to the Government policy on reform und divestiture of public enterprises sltall have e/fect notwithstanding any other enactment.

2) Where any provision of any enactment conflicts with any provision of this Act the latter shall prevail over the former.

> -L9 ?, \p \-

PaSe 18 of 24

3l .'l'he defendant contendcd that it has proven that they did not have any mandate to deal with the property or make any offers as wrongly perceived by the plaintiffs.

32.'l'he defendant fufther contended that there is no cause of action by thc I'>laintiffs againsl thc delendant and thereflore the suit is misconceivcd, lrivolous and vexatious and thc same should bc dismisscd with costs.

33.'l'he Plaintiffs submitted in rejoinder that thc pleaded government policy still cxists to datc and is sufficient to find a causc of action by thc plaintiffs. 'l'hat if the defendants deny the said mandate then the defendant would equally not have the mandate to deal with the suit property in any way including evicting them and the notices of eviction would bc null and void and of no legal eff'ect.

'fhat the Plaintiffs would be entitled to the dcclarations sought and a permanent injunction against the dcfendant.

## Decision of court on Issues onc and two

## (Preliminarv Points of law)

34.1t was hcld in the case of Kapeka Coffee W'orks ltcl versus NPART - C. A. C. A No. 3 of 2000 thal in determining whether a plaint discloscs a causc of action the Court must look only at the Plaint and its anncxtures if any and nowhere else.

> Page 19 of 24 \ 1o (' v"3

3 5 .lt was also hcld in the casc of Attorney General versus Major General David Tinyefuza - Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. I of 1997 that"A cause of action" means every fact which if traversed, it would be necessary for the Plaintiff to prove in order to support his rigltt to a Judgment of the Court."

36.1n other words, a cause of action is a bundle of facts which taken with thc law applicablc to them givcs the Plaintiff a right to relief against the delendant.

37. Ihc Plaintiffs claim that thcy arc all former cmployces ofthc de fendant and were allocated houses by the defendanl. They contended that the suit premises they were residing in were designated as non-core properties for divcstiture whose sitting tenants who were the Plaintiffs would benefit from the first opportunity to purchase them and this was in accordance with the prevailing policy al the time.

38. It was an agreed fact in the Joint Scheduling Memorandum that it was only the I't and 2"d Plaintiffs who were former employees of the defendant.

39.1t was also an agreed fact that all the thrcc Plaintiffs werc occupying houses belonging to the defendant and that the three Plaintiffs currently occupy house No. MB I , MII 3 and MB 4 respectively on Plot 61 I] Ismail road Mbuya, Kampala belonging to the defendant.

PaEe 20 of 24

1-3 l5 \D

40.1t was also an agreed fact that the three Plaintiffs were on 15tr' November 2011 each served with a notice of eviction from the said houses.

42.lntheir supplcmentary trial bundle, the defcndant attached a Judgment vide Civil Suit No. 147 of 20Il Samuel Wuma Vs. Uganda Railways Corporation lt was hcld in that case that the Plaintiff (who is Plaintiff I in this case) was under the misguided impression that he was entitled to terminal benefits from the defendant and therefore could not continuc to occupy the defendant's housing.

43. In my view that decision sealed the fate of the 1\$ Plaintiff (Samuel Alfred Wuma) unlcss a decision to the contrary by ahighcr Courl is made or if the said decision is set aside or stayed. The mattcr in respect of the suit property the I't Plaintiff is occupying is res judicata and cannot be resurrectcd in this case. The I't I']laintiff is therefore in brcach ofthe decree vide C. S Na. 147 of 2011 and cannot pray for similar reliefs in this case.

44.'lhe I't Plaintiff therefore has no cause of action against the defendant and his case will be dismissed with costs to the defendant.

45. The onus was on the Plaintiffs to prove that there was a government policy that allowcd sitting tcnants to be given first priority in case of disposal of the properties which they were occupying as sitting tenants.

46. The Plaintiffs rclied on exhibit P.28 to prove that therc cxistcd a Government Policy that allowed former employees of the defendant and

Page 2L of 24

Qn'L9 \ 1?2 \o fv\a (

who wcrc sitting tcnants to be given thc first oppo(unity to purchasc thc property they occupy subject to mccting thc bidding conditions.

47.ltis clear even from the Plaintiff s own evidcnce as shown in Exh P.28 that thc offer for the purchase of thc said houses as sitting tenants was made by thc Dircctor, Privatization Unit(scc anncxturc AA of the Plaintiff s amcnded plaint). Acceptance of thc bids wcre to be made to The Director, Privatization Unit, Sccurity Itegistry Privatization Unit, Ministry of Financc, Planning and Economic Dcvclopment.

Payments were to bc madc to thc "Privatization and Utility Sector Ileform Project Divcstiturc Account" (Sec rcquirement 4b and 5)

48. Undcr Section 5 (I) Thc Public Entcrprises Reform and Divcstiturc Act Cap 98 "Tlre Committee shall be responsible for implementing the Government Policy on reJbrm and divestiture of Public enterprises under this Act."

49. Under Section 4 of the said Act the Committee compriscd of the lollowing: -

- a. The Minister rcsponsible lor finance who shall be the chairperson; - b. Thc responsible Minister; - c. Four cmincnt Ugandans with considcrable knowlcdge and experience in industry, commcrcc law, finance or economics appointed by the Minister responsible for finance; and

Page 22 of 24

rn L-t 11> \P (

d. The chairperson of the Uganda Investment Authority.

50. Section 41 (1) of the said Act provides that "Anything duly done under the authority of this Act for the process of giving effect to the Government's policy on reform and divestiture of Public enterprise shall have effect notwithstanding any other enactment.

2) Where any provisions of any enactment conflicts with any provision of this Act, the latter shall prevail over the former."

51. I therefore agree with the submission by Counsel for the defendant that the defendant was not liable for implementing the Policy of selling the non-core assets to sitting tenants. The defendant could therefore not offer the Plaintiffs the priority to purchase the suit properties as they had no capacity to do so in their own right.

51. The Plaint did not show anywhere that it was the defendant responsible for offering its non-core assets to the sitting tenants and in effect denying to offer the first offer to purchase the houses to the Plaintiffs as sitting tenants. There was therefore no legal obligation by the defendant to offer the Plaintiffs to purchase the suit properties.

52. The preliminary objection is therefore upheld. The Plaintiffs have no cause of action against the defendant and their case will be dismissed with costs.

Page 23 of 24

en my

Hon. Justice ohn Eu e rrrma t3/10t2023