Wakilii

Butera v Mutalemwa (Civil Appeal No. 0114 of 2013)

Court of Appeal · [2017] UGCA 47 · 2017 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal from the High Court's decision on a first appeal from the Chief Magistrate's Court
Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment upheld, including the award of UGX 5,000,000 general damages and order for vacant possession

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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

On a second appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision affirming a tenancy agreement between the parties. The Court held that the respondent's right to rent or sublet the premises did not depend on registered proprietorship, so the question of ownership did not arise. The appellant, who continued occupying the suit premises without paying rent after May 2009, was in breach of the tenancy agreement. The trial court's award of UGX 5,000,000 in general damages for the inconvenience caused was not excessive and was if anything lenient. The Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it with costs.

Facts

The respondent and the appellant entered into a written tenancy agreement dated 30 November 2006 for Shop No. B11 at Nakasero market. The respondent had the power to rent or sublet the premises, holding rights derived from the owners (KCC or Sheila Investment Ltd). The appellant continued to occupy and use the premises but ceased paying rent. The respondent sued under Order XXXVI of the Civil Procedure Act (summary procedure) for arrears of rent and vacant possession. The trial magistrate found in the respondent's favour, awarding special damages of UGX 5,900,000, general damages of UGX 5,000,000 (both with 10% interest), vacant possession and costs. On first appeal, the High Court partially allowed the appeal, quashing the special damages but retaining the general damages, vacant possession and costs. The appellant lodged a second appeal challenging, among other things, the general damages award and the findings on ownership and breach.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a tenancy agreement between the parties.
  2. Whether the tenancy agreement was enforceable against the appellant.
  3. Whether the respondent is the owner of the suit premises.
  4. Whether the appellant breached the tenancy agreement.
  5. Whether the respondent was entitled to general damages.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the first appellate court upheld.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Role of the Second Appellate Court — Limits on Re-evaluation of Evidence
On a second appeal, the court will not re-evaluate evidence wholesale as a first appellate court does; it is sufficient to determine whether the first appellate court applied or failed to apply the correct principles in evaluating the evidence.
Tenancy — Capacity of Landlord to Let — Registered Proprietorship Not Required
A person's right to rent or sublet premises does not depend on registered proprietorship; it may derive from the rights enjoyed under the owners of the premises, and the question of ownership does not arise where occupation flows from a valid tenancy agreement.
Tenancy Agreement — Breach — Continued Occupation Without Payment of Rent
A tenant who continues to occupy and use premises after ceasing to pay rent is in breach of the tenancy agreement.
General Damages — Breach of Contract — Appellate Interference with Trial Court's Discretion
General damages are awarded for losses the law presumes to be the direct, natural or probable consequence of the act complained of, and an appellate court will not disturb a trial court's discretionary award of general damages unless it is shown to be excessive or otherwise unseemly.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Civil Procedure Act Order XXXVI (Summary Procedure)

Cases cited (5)

  • Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • D. R. Pandya vs R [1957] EA
  • Kairu vs Uganda [1978] HCB 123
  • Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd vs Deo Kigozi, [2002] 1 E.A. 293
  • Stroms Bruks Aktie Bolag v Hutchison [1905] AC 515
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.