Prime
Asian families, custodian board dispute over properties heats up
The Association of Expropriated Properties’ Owners Association appear before the sub-committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises at Parliament on September 11, 2019. PHOTOS | ALEX ESAGALA
A property row has erupted between the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (DAPCB) and 24 families of Asian origin.
The Asian families — under their umbrella bodies Park View Ltd and Bharat Properties Ltd — claim to be the rightful owners of prime properties on Plot 98 to 104, Nakivubo Road, Kampala LRV 646 Foli12. They claim the properties were left behind by their ancestors after then president Idi Amin expelled them from the country. They accuse the Custodian Board and the commissioner of land registration of reallocating ownership to another person.
In their suit to the Land Division of the High Court on October 2, the families claim the Ministry of Finance — in a letter dated April 21, 1992 — informed the plaintiff’s companies that the tenants were free to repossess the property effective from the date of the letter.
They also claim the executive secretary of the custodian board had written on May 5, 1992, indicating that the board was no longer their landlord since the property was returned to the registered proprietor.
“The plaintiffs (the 25 families) have recently with shock learnt that the Ministry of Finance issued a certificate of purchase or receipt to the first defendant in the case, one Mr Abdul Kasai through custodian board,” the suit reads in part.
The complainants also contend that Mr Kasai is trying to fraudulently acquire the property from the government yet the families say they have the land Title.
On August 15, 2019, the then government Attorney General, Mr William Byaruhanga, had given a legal opinion to the Ministry of Finance (MoF) indicating that the background of the matter suggested that the properties had already been repossessed by the original tenants.
“The background to this request for a legal opinion is premised on a letter by the Principal Private Secretary to President Museveni, dated June 28, 2019, to the MoF informing you that Hajji Abdul Kasai had identified Plot 98 to 104 Nakivubo Road, Kampala and wanted it to be allocated to him following a meeting with the President to resolve a long-standing dispute,” Mr Byaruhanga wrote, adding: “The letter was preceded by another one written to the secretary of the Custodian Board requesting for the status of the land.”
He concluded by advising that “the property has been repossessed under the Expropriated Properties Act by the issuance of the repossession certificate by the minister and is not subject to allocation or interference by Custodian Board and MoF.”
On September 28, the commissioner of land registration at the Ministry of Lands, Mr John Karuhanga, wrote to Prof Syed Abidi, the leader of the families, informing him that the Title issued by the Uganda Land Board comprising LRV 3894 Folio 8 was in error and should, therefore, be cancelled.
“This office further received instructions from DAPCB to issue a special certificate of title for LRV 646 Folio 12 Plot 98 to 104 Kampala Road. A certificate of receipt was accordingly issued to one Kasai Abdu by the MoF upon directive by President Museveni. You are, therefore, advised to follow up the issue of ownership of this land with MoF, DAPCB, and Parliament of Uganda,” the letter read in part.
The 25 families in the suit have now asked the court to issue a permanent injunction restraining the accused from transferring the property to Mr Kasai through the Custodian Board and the Ministry of Finance.
Background
The Asians, after their expulsion by President Idi Amin in 1972, left behind property that included businesses, stock and real estate. By law, under the Expropriated Properties Act, all property that was left behind was vested in the government of Uganda under the authority and management of DAPCB. For years, the board has had issues ranging from failure to effectively supervise the activities of the secretariat to outright corruption and negligence. Although Section 5 (1) of the Assets of Departed Asians Act mandates the board to sit at least once every month, the six ministers on the board are always too busy to meet. Other outstanding issues include theft of public funds through fictitious compensations, double allocation of properties, forged land titles, sale of assets without proper valuation, and missing documents.
