Court name
High Court of Uganda
Case number
HCT-00-CV-1998/1212
Judgment date
29 October 2002

Nagji Textile Ltd v A B Popat & 2 Ors (HCT-00-CV-1998/1212) [2002] UGHC 24 (29 October 2002);

Cite this case
[2002] UGHC 24
 
REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
 HCT-OO-CV-CS-1212 OF 1998
 NAGJI TEXTILES L
IMITED::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
A B POPAT
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::DEFENDANTS

ANIL DAMANI
JOSEPH SEMPEBWA
BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FMS EGONDA-NTENDE JUDGEMENT 
1. The Plaintiff is a limited liability company incorporated in Uganda. It seeks multiple relief including a declaration that it is the lawful owner of property comprised in Plot 3 Acacia Avenue, Kampala (hereinafter referred to as the suit property); an order for cancellation of the Defendant No. 2 and No. 3’s registration on the title register; a declaration that the sale of the suit property by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No 2 was illegal, null and void, special and general damages, mesne profits, costs and interest.
2. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant No.1, without authority and illegally signed documents of transfer for and on behalf of the Plaintiff to transfer the suit property to defendant No. 2. Particulars of illegality and fraud are set out in the plaint. Likewise it is alleged that the Defendant No.2 fraudulently transferred the suit property to Defendant No. 3. Particulars of the fraud are set out in the plaint.
3. Defendant No. 1 admits in his defence to carrying out the transactions in relation to the sale and transfer of the suit property but that he did so, for and on behalf of the Plaintiff, with the express authority, knowledge and consent of the Plaintiff.
4. Defendant No.2 asserts that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of fraud or illegality set out against defendant No.1. Defendant No. 2 further denies any alleged fraud or wrongdoing.
5. Defendant No. 3 asserts that he was a bona fide for value without notice of fraud set out against the other defendants.
6. At the commencement of the trial 29 documents were admitted by consent of the parties. The documents will be referred to as the need arises in the discussion of the evidence adduced in this case. The Plaintiff called one witness. Defendant No.1 did not call any witness. Nor did Defendant No. 3 call any witness too. Defendant No.2 testified on his behalf.
7. PW1 was Janak Kantilal Masrani, a businessman living in London. He testified that he was a shareholder and a director of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was the registered owner of the suit property. It was expropriated during Idi