Joy Tumushabe and Anor vs M s Anglo African Ltd and Anor (Civil Appeal No 38 of 1997)

Court of Appeal · [1998] UGCA 19 · 1998 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Civil appeal from High Court judgment dismissing a suit for unlawful distress and eviction

Decision

Appeal dismissed; trial court's dismissal of the suit upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that both the eviction and the distress for rent were lawfully done. The first respondent, Anglo African Ltd, derived valid authority from a later power of attorney (Exh D3) operative at the relevant time, making it the landlord's attorney entitled under section 3 of the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act to levy distress. The actual execution was lawfully carried out by an employee of a firm whose sole proprietor was a licensed court bailiff. As the eviction and distress were lawful, the court did not consider remedies. The court also observed that admissibility of documents should be ruled upon when the issue is raised rather than deferred to judgment.

Facts

The first appellant occupied a flat and operated a shop in suit premises formerly owned by Asians who had been expelled from Uganda. The premises were managed by the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board until Laximidas Dalia repossessed them in 1993 under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982. Dalia, living abroad, appointed Anglo African Ltd (first respondent) to manage the property. The appellants refused to pay rent, challenged Dalia's title in separate proceedings, and lost an interim injunction. On 1 August 1994 Anglo African Ltd authorised Security Auctioneers to levy distress for unpaid rent of about Shs. 23,742,024 for the shop and Shs. 2,972,075 for the flat. Vacation notices were issued and execution carried out on 17 August 1994 by the second respondent, an employee of Security Auctioneers whose proprietor, Charles Rwija, was a licensed court bailiff. The appellants sued for unlawful distress, alleging inadequate notice, expired authority and an unauthorised person executing the distress. The trial court dismissed the suit.

Issues

Whether the eviction of the appellants was carried out illegally.
Whether the distress for rent was levied illegally given the authority of the first respondent and the qualifications of the person who executed the distress.
Whether the appellants proved that property was taken from the shop and that the special damages claimed were established.
Whether the trial judge erred in admitting a document (Exh D1) in evidence.

Orders

Appeal dismissed.
Costs of the appeal and of the court below awarded to the respondents.

Key headnotes

Distress for Rent — Persons Authorised to Levy Distress — Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act s.3

Under section 3 of the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act, distress for rent may lawfully be levied only by the landlord in person, his attorney, the legal owner of the reversion, or a person authorised by a certificate in writing under the hand of a certifying officer.

Power of Attorney — Implied Revocation of Earlier Authority by Later Grant

An earlier power of attorney to manage property is impliedly revoked by a later power of attorney granted over the same property, and authority to act derives from the later instrument.

Distress for Rent — Execution by Employee of Licensed Court Bailiff

A landlord's attorney may lawfully engage a firm of court bailiffs to levy distress, and execution carried out by an employee acting on behalf of a firm whose proprietor is a licensed court bailiff is valid.

Admissibility of Documents — Duty to Rule When Objection Raised

A trial court should rule on the admissibility of a document at the time the objection is raised rather than deferring the ruling to judgment; where reasons cannot be given immediately, they may be embodied in the judgment, but the admissibility question must be resolved promptly to enable counsel to use or disregard the document.

Legislation cited (2)

Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act (Cap 68) s.3
Expropriated Properties Act 1982

Cases cited (1)

Kampala City Council v Nakaye (1972) EA 446

Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.