Wakilii

Erukana Kuwe v Vashrambhai Damji Vadher (Civil Appeal 42 of 2000)

Court of Appeal · [2001] UGCA 34 · 2001 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from High Court judgment granting relief against forfeiture
Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court order granting relief against forfeiture upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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 against an order granting the respondent lessee relief against forfeiture. While section 27 of the Judicature Statute is limited to forfeiture for non-payment of rent, the court held that sections 16(2) and 35 of the Judicature Statute empower the High Court to apply equity where there is no written law, so the trial judge correctly granted relief for subletting though she quoted the wrong section. The appellant had not effected re-entry and held only an equitable interest. Section 184 of the Registration of Titles Act did not apply because the lease had not been voided and no physical re-entry occurred. The trial judge properly exercised her discretion.

Facts

The appellant was the registered proprietor of land at Block 29 Plot 123 Mulago. By a 1968 lease, he let the property to the respondent for 49 years at a yearly rent of shs. 600, with covenants against subletting without written consent and to keep the property in good repair. The respondent, an Asian, was expelled from Uganda in 1972 and the property vested in the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board. The respondent repossessed the property in 1993 and sublet it to a tenant. In 1995 the appellant gave the tenant notice, declared himself owner, and made a new tenancy agreement with the same tenant. The appellant sought to note a re-entry, which the Commissioner for Land Registration refused. The appellant sued for a declaration that he had lawfully terminated the lease. The High Court found breaches of the lease but granted the respondent relief against forfeiture, holding the appellant had received roughly shs. 10 million over four years as sufficient compensation.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erred in granting relief against forfeiture where breaches other than non-payment of rent had been established.
  2. Whether section 27 of the Judicature Statute permits relief against forfeiture for breaches other than non-payment of rent.
  3. Whether section 184 of the Registration of Titles Act barred the respondent lessee's action against the appellant lessor.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Leases — Relief Against Forfeiture — Scope of Section 27 of the Judicature Statute
Section 27 of the Judicature Statute provides for relief against forfeiture only in respect of forfeiture for non-payment of rent and does not extend to breaches of other covenants in a lease.
Leases — Relief Against Forfeiture — Use of Equity Where No Written Law
Where there is no written law governing relief against forfeiture for breaches such as subletting, sections 16(2) and 35 of the Judicature Statute empower the High Court to apply equity and grant such relief.
Leases — Re-entry — Equitable Interest Where Re-entry Not Effected
A lessor who purports to re-enter by renting out the premises but who has not physically re-entered or had the re-entry noted in the register book acquires only an equitable interest and has not effected re-entry in law.
Registration of Titles — Section 184 — Lessee's Action Against Lessor
Section 184 of the Registration of Titles Act bars a lessee from bringing an ejectment action against the lessor, but it does not apply where the lease has not been voided and the lessor has not physically re-entered the land.
Appeals — Interference With Exercise of Discretion
An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial court unless satisfied that the trial court misdirected itself and as a result arrived at a wrong decision, or that the judge was clearly wrong and injustice resulted.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Judicature Statute s.27
  • Judicature Statute s.16(2)
  • Judicature Statute s.35
  • Registration of Titles Act s.184
  • Constitution of Uganda article 26
  • Constitution of Uganda article 126
  • Expropriated Properties Act No. 9 of 1982
  • English Conveyancing and Property Act 1881 s.14

Cases cited (6)

  • Francis Butagira v Deborah Namukasa (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1968)
  • Hyman and Another v Rose [1912] AC 632
  • Lugogo Coffee (U) Ltd v Singo Combined Coffee [1976] HCB 32
  • Executrix of the Estate of the Late Christine Mary Namatovu v Noel Grace Shalita Stananzi (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1996)
  • Mbogo and Another v Shah [1968] EA 93
  • Bail v De Cresprigny (1869) L.R. 4 QB 180 (1861-73) All ER 332
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.