Wakilii

Gulu FM Radio v Oryem Oringa Joseph (Civil Appeal No.179 of 2017)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 388 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court judgment entered after the appellant's written statement of defence was struck out and the suit proved formally.
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the judgment and orders of the High Court affirmed with costs to the respondent.

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 held that the appellant's written statement of defence, which merely denied refusing to pay rent without specifically answering the claim, was evasive under O.6 r.10 of the Civil Procedure Rules and was properly struck out. A tenant who ignored formal notice of the change of ownership and refused to vacate or pay rent to the new registered owner became a trespasser. Although the trial judge wrongly inferred fraud that had been neither pleaded nor proved, so that ground three succeeded, this did not displace the result. The damages awards were within the trial judge's judicious discretion and not subject to appellate interference. The appeal failed substantially and was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The respondent purchased premises on Plot 10 Market Street, Gulu, from Urib Wunu Mon For Co-operatives Saving and Credit (UWMFO) and transferred the certificate of title into his name; the sale agreement was executed on 25 March 2014. At the time of purchase the appellant, a radio station whose managing director, Christopher Acire, was also a director of UWMFO, occupied the premises as UWMFO's tenant. By letter dated 24 November 2015 the respondent notified the appellant of the change of ownership, demanded rent and requested vacant possession, which the appellant ignored. The respondent sued in the High Court at Gulu for recovery of the premises, rent arrears of UGX 10,500,000, repair costs of UGX 40,000,000, interest, a permanent injunction and costs. The trial judge struck out the appellant's written statement of defence as disclosing no plausible defence and, after formal proof, entered judgment for the respondent, awarding the sums claimed plus general damages of UGX 80,000,000. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant's written statement of defence was frivolous, vexatious and disclosed no plausible defence to the suit.
  2. Whether the trial judge was justified in declining to entertain Miscellaneous Application No.94 of 2017 before delivering judgment in the suit.
  3. Whether the trial judge erred in inferring fraud against the appellant when it was neither pleaded nor proved.
  4. Whether the appellant was a trespasser whose interest in the suit property was not protected on the transfer of ownership.
  5. Whether the awards of rent arrears and repair costs were justified and proved.
  6. Whether the award of UGX 80,000,000 in general damages was manifestly excessive.

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No.210 of 2018 struck out with no order as to costs, having been overtaken by events.
  • Appeal dismissed with costs here and in the court below.
  • Judgment and orders of the lower court affirmed.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Evasive Denial — Written Statement of Defence
A written statement of defence that merely denies refusing to pay rent, without specifically answering the plaintiff's claim of non-payment, is evasive under Order 6 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules and discloses no plausible defence.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out Defence — Effect of Order 6 rule 30
Once a written statement of defence is struck out, the claim stands unchallenged as if no defence had been filed, and only issues of law evident from the plaintiff's own case remain for the court to consider after formal proof.
Civil Procedure — Grounds of Appeal — Rule 86(1) Court of Appeal Rules
A ground of appeal that clearly specifies the point alleged to have been wrongly decided does not offend Rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules merely because it contains some element of narration.
Evidence — Fraud — Specific Pleading and Strict Proof
Fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved and cannot be inferred from the facts; a court that infers fraud where it was neither pleaded nor proved wrongly allows a party to succeed on a case not set up by him.
Land & Property — Trespass — Tenant Refusing to Vacate on Change of Ownership
A tenant who, on formal notice of a change of ownership and a demand for vacant possession, refuses to vacate or pay rent to the new registered owner becomes a trespasser whose interest is not protected.
Damages & Quantum — Appellate Interference with Damages Awards
An appellate court may interfere with an award of damages only where it is so inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate, or where the trial judge proceeded on a wrong principle or misapprehended the evidence in a material respect.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Judicial Discretion
General damages are the direct, natural or probable consequence of the wrongful act, and the quantum is a matter for the judicious discretion of the trial judge; an appellate court will not interfere where that discretion was properly exercised.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.30
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.10
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.26
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.44
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.30(1)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.86(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.6(2)(b)
  • Contracts Act Cap 284 s.60(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)

Cases cited (11)

  • National Enterprises Corporation v Mukisa Foods Limited (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1997)
  • G.M Combined Ltd v A.K Detergents Uganda Limited (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1998)
  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1993)
  • Baguma Fred v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2004)
  • Kampala City Council and Another v James Bwogi & Sons Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2009)
  • J.W.R. Kazoora v M.L.S Rukuba (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1992)
  • Byabalema and Others V Uganda Transport Company (1990-1994) EA 59 (SC)
  • [1905] AC 515
  • [1985] KLR 730
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.