Wakilii

Abryanz Collection Ltd v Yasheen Ratanshi (Misc. Application No. 831 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 131 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit arising from Civil Suit No. 385 of 2025
Decision
Application dismissed; summary judgment entered for landlord with order for payment of rent arrears, ongoing rent, interest, vacant possession, and costs

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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

The court dismissed the application for leave to appear and defend, holding that the applicant tenant failed to raise a triable issue. The tenant's obligation to pay rent under the tenancy agreement was not conditional on obtaining KCCA approvals for renovations. The tenant remained in possession, paid rent for several months after KCCA's condemnation notice, and expressly acknowledged the rent obligation in correspondence. Judgment was entered for the landlord for USD 33,200 in rent arrears plus ongoing rent, interest at 18% per annum, vacant possession, and costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed; summary judgment entered for landlord with order for payment of rent arrears, ongoing rent, interest, vacant possession, and costs

Facts

On 1 August 2023, the parties executed a four-year tenancy agreement for commercial premises in Kampala. The agreement granted the tenant a three-month grace period to prepare the premises at its own cost, followed by a subsidized rent period, with full monthly rent of USD 3,200 commencing 1 February 2024. The tenant was to invest approximately USD 100,000 in retrofitting and upgrading the building at its own risk and cost, subject to obtaining necessary approvals from city authorities. After KCCA inspection in August 2024 recommended demolition and reconstruction, the tenant obtained a building permit in November 2024. The tenant paid rent until August 2024, then defaulted. In October 2024, the tenant offered to purchase the property and acknowledged its obligation to pay rent until January 2025. The landlord filed a summary suit for USD 33,200 in rent arrears. The tenant applied for leave to defend, arguing it could not use the premises and therefore was not liable for rent.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend High Court Civil Suit No. 385 of 2025?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application for leave to appear and defend dismissed.
  • Judgment entered for the Respondent/Plaintiff under Order 36 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • The Applicant/Defendant shall pay the Respondent/Plaintiff USD 33,200 being rental arrears as of 31st March, 2025.
  • The Applicant/Defendant shall pay the Respondent/Plaintiff the rent due for the period after 31st March, 2025 until vacant possession is handed over.
  • The Applicant/Defendant shall give vacant possession of the suit premises to the Respondent/Plaintiff.
  • The Applicant/Defendant shall pay interest on the sums at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of default until payment in full.
  • The Respondent/Plaintiff is awarded the costs of this application and the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Tenancy Agreements — Rent Obligation — Effect of Tenant's Renovation Works
Where a tenancy agreement expressly provides that the tenant shall undertake renovations and improvements at its own cost and risk after obtaining necessary approvals, and grants a grace period and subsidized rent for this purpose, the tenant's obligation to pay rent is not conditional on obtaining those approvals or completing the works. The tenant remains liable for rent while in possession of the premises.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Leave to Appear and Defend — Triable Issue
For leave to appear and defend a summary suit to be granted under Order 36 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the applicant must show by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law. A triable issue is one capable of being resolved through legal trial and arises when a material proposition of law or fact is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. The defence must not be needlessly bald, vague, or sketchy.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Conduct Inconsistent with Defence
Where a tenant continues to pay rent for several months after becoming aware of alleged defects in the premises, expressly acknowledges the rent obligation in correspondence, and proposes alternative payment arrangements, such conduct is inconsistent with a defence that no rent is payable. The tenant cannot raise a triable issue by asserting non-liability for rent while remaining in possession and having previously paid rent.
Land & Property — Landlord and Tenant — Vacant Possession — Rent Default
Under section 44 of the Landlord and Tenant Act Cap. 238, a landlord is entitled to an order for vacant possession where the tenant refuses to pay rent due while remaining in possession of the premises. Where a tenancy agreement provides that the landlord may evict the tenant if rent is due for 15 days or more, the court will order vacant possession upon proof of rent default.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (7)

  • Jamil Ssenyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)
  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd v Bombay Garage [1958] EA 741
  • Post Bank (U) Limited v Abdu Ssozi (SCCA No. 8 of 2015)
  • Ndibazza Naima v Acacia Finance Limited (HCMA No. 1144 of 2014)
  • Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation (U) Ltd and Another (SCCA No. 1 of 2000)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co. Ltd [1981] HCB 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Abryanz Collection Ltd v Yasheen Ratanshi (Misc. Application No. 831 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 131 (5 June 2025)
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.