Long Read: Parliament Tells Gov’t to Take Ownership of Sudhir Ruparelia’s Bauman House

By Chimp Investigation Team

Parliament has adopted an investigation report recommending the transfer of ownership of Sudhir Ruparelia’s prime buildings in Kampala to government.

These structures include Bauman House located on Plot 1, Parliamentary Avenue and Crane Chambers on Plot 38, Kampala Road.

“All properties whose repossession were recalled by the Minister in the gazette and are currently being rented by Government itself, including but not limited to Plot 1 Parliamentary Avenue among others should be allocated to the Government agencies,” reads part of Parliament’s investigation report into the operations of the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board.

The report was adopted by Parliament on May 5, a move that could spark a huge legal battle to protect the prime properties.

Sudhir had proposed to stake Bauman House, which is rented by Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, as collateral for Bank of Uganda to lend him millions of dollars to capitalise the defunct Crane Bank.

It all started with the Minister of Finance who was overseeing the operations of the custodian board exercised his powers under Section 9 (1) of the Expropriated Properties Act (EPA) and withdrew repossession certificates on several properties in the Uganda Gazette of 8th November 1991, including Bauman House.

Such withdrawal can be authorized by the Minister where a former owner does not return within 120 days in breach of the law.

Thus, the withdrawal of certificates of repossession by the Minister under the above provision vested such properties in the Custodian Board to either be retained or be sold or disposed of in a manner stipulated under the regulations made under the Act.

Any holders of such withdrawn certificates, the MPs’ argued, are “holding such certificates irregularly” as such properties remain under the management of the Custodian Board and available for the Minister to deal with as per Section 9 of the EPA.

In simple terms, the MPs discovered that the repossession certificates for Bauman House and Crane Chambers among others, were recalled by the minister because the former owners (Asians expelled by Idi Amin), did not return to Uganda within the specified 120 days as prescribed by law.

As such, the Committee observed that there could not have been bonafide purchasers in respect to these properties as publication of the withdrawal of certificates of repossession in the Uganda gazette of 8th November 1991 constituted notice to the whole world in line with Sections 16 and 17 of the Interpretation Act.

This is especially so because in Halling Manzoor vs Singh Bdram, Civil Appeal No, 9 of 2OO7, Court held that- “. ..no expropriated property can be validly sold by the former owner, before repossession. .. a dealing of whatever kind in such a property is a nullity. Sale can only occur after repossession and with the consent of the Minister. The subsequent transactions and transfers after the withdrawal of the certificate of title by the Minister are null and void.”

Background

On 4th August, 1972, President Idi Amin Dada, ordered the expulsion of about 60,0O0 Asians domiciled in Uganda. Most of them were engaged in businesses that formed the backbone of Uganda’s economy at the time.

The expulsion was premised on disloyalty from the minority Asians to Amin’s Government, lack of integration of Ugandan Africans in business, and commercial malpractice. The Asians were given an ultimatum of 90 days to leave the country and all their properties and businesses in the country’s different parts.

The expulsion order of President Idi Amin had a considerable impact on the Asian community. There was undoubtedly a lot of fear and uncertainty, which created a lot of Asian disquiet about returning to Uganda among those expelled.

According to the NRC Select Committee report on the custodian Board affairs, between 7,00O to 10,000 properties were abandoned by the expelled Asians. The government of Uganda, through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the British High Commission and the Indian Government compensated some Asians that did not return back to Uganda to repossess their properties.

In the same spirit, the Parliament of Uganda enacted the Expropriated Properties Act, (EPA) Cap 87 of the Laws of Uganda to provide for the transfer of the properties and businesses acquired or otherwise expropriated during the military regime to the Ministry of Finance, to provide for the return to former owners or disposal of the property by the Government.

Former owners of properties were required to return to Uganda within 120 days to claim their properties. Many didn’t turn up, abandoning their properties in Uganda.

Mystery

However, MP Kasozi’s Committee established that “some of these properties had mysteriously landed in the hands of private individuals yet the Minister of Finance has not dealt with them under the law.”

Sudhir Ruparelia, who doubles as the Honorary Consul of Nepal, was in 2020 summoned to explain circumstances under which he acquired the expelled Asians’ property worth millions of dollars in Kampala.

Although Sudhir told the Parliament committee that he genuinely purchased the over 10 plots of prime land in Kampala and Mbale district, officials from the Departed Asian Custodian Board (DAPCB) told the committee that some of the processes could have been flawed.

In some cases, the custodian board informed the committee that some of the owners that Sudhir mentioned were non-existent in their records while in other instances, the process of repossession of the land purchased by Sudhir was not completed.

About plot 24 on Kampala road, Sudhir told the committee that he bought the property from Mohammad Alibhai, Mustapha Alibhai a family, Hussein Jamal among others and has all the documentation but the Executive Secretary of the Custodian Board led by George William Bizibu said the owners were unknown to them but Sudhir insisted that he bought the properties from those who re-possessed the properties.

In some cases, although Sudhir presented sale agreements defending the purchase of the property, the committee noted that only one person had signed the sales agreement.

The report tabled before Parliament indicated that, “There was no substantial evidence or documentation from some of the affected parties indicating the Board’s role or Minister’s role in dealing with the properties.”

The Committee chaired by MP Ibrahim Kasozi could not also establish any legal authority from the former owners to repossess from either the Minister of Finance or the Board.

“Any claim of authorized repossession by former owners ought to have been evidenced by the certificate of repossession issued by the Minister of Finance. Further still, any form of transfer from former owners could only have been aided by the registration of the certificate of repossession on the title as an instrument conferring ownership back to the former owner prior to the transfer to alleged bona fide purchaser,” the report reads in part.

The Committee recommended that “all such properties whose certificates of repossession were recalled by the Minister be immediately recovered and brought back to the Government of Uganda.’

Parliament further agreed that “all certificates of titles issued on such properties should be immediately cancelled and the register of titles be corrected to reflect the ownership prior to the purported repossessions.”

William street property

The MPs gave the example of Plot 5 William Street which Sudhir acquired under mysterious circumstances.

The property was registered on 20th January, 1971 to 40% Chandrakant Rambhai Patel, 35% Satishchnadra Rambhai Patel, 15 % Marbahi Patel and 10% Manibhai Ashabhai Amin as tenants in common in the above shares.

There is no repossession certificate, according to MPs. The property was transferred and registered on 9th February, 1996 to 10% Rambhai Patel, as tenants in common in above shares.

On 17 May, 1996 the title was transferred to Premmath Kaboor and thereafter on 21 March, 2002 to Meera Investments, a conglomerate of Sudhir’s businesses.

“There is no repossession certificate registered on land title,” the report reads in part. “The current occupant Meera investment converted if from lease to free hold…”

Resolutions

Parliament has since decided that all parties claiming to be bonafide purchasers for value without notice in respect to properties whose certificates were withdrawn should seek compensation from the persons that sold the properties to them as the sellers or vendors of such properties did not have good title to pass on.

“The subsequent transactions and transfers after the withdrawal of the certificate of title by the Minister are null and void,” said Parliament.

“DAPCB should upon adoption of this report, institute processes to recover these properties from current illegal holders.”