Wakilii

Airport Coolers Ltd v Meica Uganda Limited [2025] UGCOMMC 359

High Court · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of rent arrears and breach of contract, proceeded ex parte after defendant failed to enter appearance
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with damages 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

Where a defendant fails to enter appearance or file a defence despite proper service, the court may proceed ex parte. A plaintiff must prove breach of contract by establishing the existence of the contract, a breach of contractual duty, and resultant damages. Failure to file a defence constitutes constructive admittance of the plaintiff's allegations. A tenant who occupies commercial premises and defaults on rent is liable to pay accrued rent arrears and general damages for breach of contract.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with damages and costs

Facts

The Plaintiff owns a cold storage facility at Kawuku, Entebbe, Wakiso District. On 1 June 2020, the parties entered a rental agreement for cold storage rooms at UGX 4,500,000 per month per room. The Defendant took possession and met payment obligations until December 2022, when it began defaulting. By the time of filing suit, rent arrears had accumulated to UGX 253,975,381. The Plaintiff issued demand notices which the Defendant ignored. Despite being served with summons on 18 April 2024, the Defendant failed to enter appearance or file a defence. The court granted the Plaintiff's application to proceed ex parte under Order 9 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant breached the rental agreement dated 1st June 2020 with the Plaintiff.
  2. Whether Defendant is liable to pay rent arrears to the Plaintiff.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • There was a breach of contract by the Defendant.
  • The Defendant is liable and the Plaintiff is entitled to recover UGX 253,975,381/= from the Defendant being unpaid rent arrears.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 40,000,000/=.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded the costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Failure to Enter Appearance
Where a defendant is properly served with summons but fails to file a defence within the prescribed time, the court may proceed to hear the matter ex parte as if the defendant had filed a defence under Order 9 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Civil Procedure — Failure to File Defence — Constructive Admission
A defendant who fails to file a defence puts himself out of court, has no locus standi, and cannot be heard. Such failure constitutes a presumption of constructive admittance, and the plaintiff's allegations must be taken as true.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Elements of Proof
To establish breach of contract, a plaintiff must prove: (i) the existence of a contract and its essential terms; (ii) a breach of a duty imposed by the contract; and (iii) resultant damages.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Civil Proceedings
In civil proceedings, the burden of proof lies upon the party who makes a claim, and the burden is discharged on a balance of probabilities. Even where a defendant fails to enter appearance, the plaintiff still bears the burden of proving the case on the balance of probabilities.
Contract Law — Rental Agreements — Non-Payment of Rent as Breach
A tenant who occupies rental premises and defaults in paying rent breaches the rental agreement. Equity demands that the tenant pay for the usage of the facilities. The landlord is entitled to recover accrued rent arrears.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Breach of Commercial Lease
Where a tenant defaults on rent, the landlord is entitled to general damages for inconvenience and lost profit, as the premises could have been rented to another tenant who would not have defaulted. Damages are awarded to place the plaintiff in the position it would have been in had the contract been performed (restitutio in integrum).
Civil Procedure — Costs — Costs Follow the Event
As a rule of law, costs ordinarily follow the event and a successful litigant receives costs in the absence of special circumstances. Where a claim is necessitated by the defendant's breach of contract, the plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (16)

  • Kanji Devji v Damodar Jinabhai & Co (1934) 1 EACA 87
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Kirugi and another v Kabiya and three others [1987] KLR
  • Meridiana Africa Airlines (U) Limited v Avmax Spares (EA) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 111 of 2017)
  • Networth Consult Co. Limited v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 541 of 2022)
  • Sylar Kakugu Tumwesigyire v Trans Sahara International General TRDG LLC (Civil Suit No. 95 of 2005)
  • Smith v Auto Electric Services Ltd (1951) 24 KLR 22
  • Joseph Akol v Innovative Masters (Civil Suit No. 175 of 2013)
  • Obongo & Another v Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] EA 91
  • Kyambadde v Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44
  • Kampala District Land Board & George Mitala v Venansio Babweyana (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
  • Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850
  • Waiglobe (U) Limited v Sai Beverages Limited (Civil Suit No. 16 of 2017)
  • Harry Ssempa v Kambagambire David (Civil Suit No. 408 of 2014)
  • Iyamuleme David v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2013)
  • Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries Ltd [1951] 1 All ER 873

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Airport Coolers Ltd v Meica Uganda Limited 2025 UGCommC 359 (29 January 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.