Wakilii

Performance Furnishings (U) Ltd v Executive Investments (Civil Application No. 349 of 2025)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 274 · 2025 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal for an injunction to maintain the status quo pending determination of an appeal from a High Court dismissal of a suit
Decision
Application allowed; injunction granted restraining eviction pending determination of Civil Appeal No. 482 of 2025, on condition the applicant pay rent at the original agreed rates

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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

A single Justice held the application competent: a suit dismissed under Order 7 rule 11 that conclusively determines the parties' rights is a decree appealable as of right under sections 2 and 66 of the Civil Procedure Act, despite not being listed in Order 44 rule 1, so no leave to appeal was required. On the merits, the applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success, demonstrated irreparable harm through loss of goodwill and commercial reputation at a strategic premises, and the balance of convenience favoured it. The Court granted an injunction restraining eviction pending appeal, on condition the applicant pay rent at the original agreed rates.

Facts

On 1 February 2017 the applicant tenant entered a tenancy agreement with the respondent landlord for premises with a store and showroom at plot 8, Hannington Road, Kampala, for a five-year term automatically renewable. The applicant paid rent and operated its business there. In January 2023 the respondent allegedly unilaterally increased the rent, and in October 2023 served a notice of termination for non-payment. The applicant filed High Court Civil Suit No. 1422 of 2023 challenging the rent increase and termination, and obtained a temporary injunction restraining eviction. On 23 June 2025 the High Court struck out the plaint and dismissed the suit under Order 7 rule 11 for failure to disclose a cause of action, on the ground that the tenancy had expired, thereby vacating the injunction and exposing the applicant to eviction. The applicant filed a notice of appeal (registered as Civil Appeal No. 482 of 2025) and brought this application for an injunction to maintain the status quo pending the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for an injunction was competent before the Court of Appeal given that no leave to appeal had been obtained against the High Court order dismissing the suit under Order 7 rule 11.
  2. Whether the circumstances warranted the grant of an injunction and whether the applicant met the conditions precedent for its grant.

Orders

  • An injunction is issued restraining the Respondent from evicting the Applicant from, taking possession of, occupying or taking any steps on the suit property at plot 8, Hannington Road, Kampala City until determination of Civil Appeal No. 482 of 2025.
  • The Applicant to pay rent of the suit premises as per the initial tenancy agreement dated 1/2/2017, namely USD 2,250 for the office space, USD 150 for the store and USD 411 for the showroom, inclusive of VAT and service charge, payable quarterly in advance with effect from September 2025 until determination of the appeal.
  • Each party to bear its own costs of the application.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Decree versus Order — Dismissal under Order 7 rule 11
An order dismissing or striking out a suit under Order 7 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules that conclusively determines the rights of the parties is a decree within section 2(c) of the Civil Procedure Act, and is appealable as of right under sections 2 and 66 of the Act, notwithstanding that it is not among the orders listed in Order 44 rule 1; no leave to appeal is required.
Statutory Interpretation — Principal legislation versus subsidiary legislation — Precedence
Where there is a conflict, the Civil Procedure Act as principal legislation takes precedence over the Civil Procedure Rules as subsidiary legislation.
Civil Procedure — Injunctions pending appeal — Appropriate remedy where order not executable
Where a dismissal or striking-out order is not capable of execution and therefore cannot be stayed, the proper remedy for a party seeking to maintain the status quo pending appeal is an injunction granted by the Court of Appeal under rule 6(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, not a stay of execution.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Conditions precedent for grant
An injunction will be granted where the applicant shows a prima facie case with a probability of success and that it might otherwise suffer irreparable damage not adequately compensable in damages; where the court is in doubt on those two points it decides the application on the balance of convenience.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Irreparable damage — Loss of goodwill and commercial reputation
Loss of goodwill and commercial reputation constitutes irreparable loss because it is intangible and difficult to quantify, and cannot be adequately compensated by an award of monetary damages.
Land & Property — Landlord and Tenant — Existence of tenancy by conduct under the Landlord-Tenant Act 2022
Under section 3(1) and (3) of the Landlord-Tenant Act 2022, the existence of a tenancy may be established by successive agreements renewed in writing or verbally by mutual agreement, evidenced by conduct such as agreed reduction of rent, the landlord's continued receipt of rent beyond the formal term, and an automatic renewal clause.

Legislation cited (12)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I No. 13-10 r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I No. 13-10 r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I No. 13-10 r.76
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.40(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.44 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.44 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.7 r.11
  • Civil Procedure Act s.2
  • Civil Procedure Act s.66
  • Landlord-Tenant Act 2022 s.3(1)
  • Landlord-Tenant Act 2022 s.3(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28

Cases cited (15)

  • Patrick Kaumba Wiltshire v Ismail Dabule (Civil Application No. 3 of 2018)
  • Parambot Breweries Ltd (In receivership) v Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd & Anor (Civil Application No. 265 of 2018)
  • Haruna Sentongo v I & M Bank Ltd (Civil Application No. 113 of 2023)
  • Kiwanuka v Micro Finance Centre Ltd & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 159 of 2014)
  • Hwan Sung Ltd v M & D Timber Merchants and Transporters Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2018)
  • South British Insurance Co. Ltd v Mohamedali Taibji Ltd [1973] EA 2010
  • E.L.T Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Abdu Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • Robert Kavuma v Hotel International (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1990)
  • Godfrey Ssekitoleko & Ors v Seezi Peter Mutabazi & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2021)
  • Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkudiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Mohammed M. Hamid v Roko Construction Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2013)
  • Coil Ltd & Anor v Attorney General & Anor (Civil Application No. 195 of 2015)
  • Anisuma Traders Ltd v Golf Holding Ltd (HCMA No. 36 of 2016)
  • Jayndrakumar D.D v Haridas V.B & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1971)
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.