Wakilii

Anupama Rao singh v Giuseppe Giamono & Anor (Civil Suit No. 120 of 2013)

High Court · [2015] UGCOMMC 17 · 2015 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of arrears of rent and damages arising from breach of sale agreement and memorandum of understanding; interlocutory judgment entered against first defendant; second defendant filed defence as guarantor
Decision
Judgment entered against both defendants jointly and severally for arrears of rent, expenses, general damages, interest, and costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 held that a guarantor who signs a memorandum of understanding guaranteeing payment of rent and liabilities arising from a tenant's possession remains liable despite the landlord repossessing the property, where the tenant defaulted. Mere forbearance to sue the principal debtor does not discharge the guarantor. The guarantor is liable for all obligations incurred during the tenancy period up to repossession, including arrears of rent and expenses for security, wages, and repairs.

Outcome

Judgment entered against both defendants jointly and severally for arrears of rent, expenses, general damages, interest, and costs

Facts

On 16 August 2012, the plaintiff and first defendant entered into a sale agreement for land at USD 390,000. The first defendant experienced difficulty transferring funds and requested an extension. On 11 October 2012, the parties executed a memorandum of understanding extending payment to 31 December 2012 and creating a limited tenancy at USD 5,000 monthly rent payable in advance. The second defendant signed as guarantor. The first defendant paid only USD 1,000 of the USD 15,000 rent due, remained in possession until 29 January 2013, and left unpaid utility bills and property damage. The plaintiff repossessed the property on 29 January 2013 and incurred expenses for repairs and outstanding bills. Despite demand, neither defendant paid the arrears.

Issues

  1. Whether the second defendant is liable as guarantor under the memorandum of understanding.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Judgment entered against both defendants jointly and severally.
  • First and second defendants to pay USD 14,000 as arrears of rent.
  • First and second defendants to pay USD 5,000 for continued occupation from January 2013 until repossession on 29 January 2013.
  • First and second defendants to pay UGX 5,480,000 for security, wage bills, and repairs.
  • Interest awarded on rent arrears and expenses at 6% per annum from date of filing suit until payment in full.
  • General damages of UGX 20,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Interest on general damages awarded at 6% per annum from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract of Guarantee — Definition and Formation — Signing of Memorandum as Guarantor
Under section 68 of the Contracts Act, a contract of guarantee is a contract to perform a promise or discharge the liability of a third party in case of default. Where a person signs a memorandum of understanding agreeing to guarantee the liability of a third party, there is a binding agreement of guarantee, and the signature constitutes acknowledgment sufficient to render the signatory liable.
Contract of Guarantee — Liability of Guarantor — Trigger upon Default of Principal Debtor
The liability of a guarantor takes effect upon default by the principal debtor. Under section 71(2) of the Contracts Act, once the principal debtor defaults, the guarantor becomes liable for any or all obligations and liabilities of the principal debtor incurred during the period covered by the guarantee.
Contract of Guarantee — Effect of Repossession on Guarantor's Liability
Repossession of property by the creditor does not discharge the guarantor from liability for obligations and liabilities incurred by the principal debtor before repossession. Where a memorandum of understanding provides that the guarantor is liable for all liabilities arising from possession and occupation up to the time of repossession, the guarantor remains liable for arrears and expenses incurred during that period, and the creditor has the option to sue the guarantor instead of the principal debtor.
Contract of Guarantee — Forbearance to Sue Principal Debtor — Effect on Guarantor
Under section 78 of the Contracts Act, mere forbearance on the part of the creditor to sue the principal debtor or to enforce any other remedy against the principal debtor does not, in the absence of any provision in the guarantee to the contrary, discharge the guarantor from liability.
Contract of Guarantee — Variation of Principal Contract — Effect on Guarantor's Liability
Under section 74 of the Contracts Act, a guarantor is discharged from obligations by a variance in the terms of the contract between the principal debtor and creditor made without the consent of the guarantor. However, where an offer to vary terms is conditional and is not accepted or acted upon by the principal debtor, there is no variation, and the guarantor remains liable under the original terms.
Special Damages — Proof and Recovery — Expenses Incurred from Breach
Special damages are damages in fact caused by a wrong and are recoverable only if specifically claimed and proved. Where a guarantor undertakes to pay all liabilities arising from possession and occupation of property up to repossession, the guarantor is liable for arrears of rent, expenses for utilities, security, wages, and repairs incurred during that period, provided such expenses are proved with supporting documentary evidence.
Currency of Damages Award — Bank of Uganda Act Section 17
Under section 17 of the Bank of Uganda Act, all monetary obligations or transactions shall be expressed, recorded, and settled in Uganda shillings unless otherwise provided under any enactment or lawfully agreed between the parties. Where a contract provides for payment in US dollars but does not provide that damages for breach shall be settled in US dollars, the court has discretion to award general damages in Uganda shillings.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (14)

  • V.H.S Ltd and BKS Air Transport Ltd v Stephen [1964] 1 Lloyd's Rep 460
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 07 of 1995)
  • Midland Motor Showroom v Newman [1929] KB 256
  • Bank of Uganda v Bank Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 08 of 1998)
  • Holme v Brunnskill (1887) 3 QBD 495
  • Watt v Shuttleworth (1861) 7 H & N 353
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v Tanzanite Corporation Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2004)
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom (U) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 224 of 2011)
  • Kampala District Land Board and George Mitala v Venansio Babweyaka (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2007)
  • Margaret Kato and Joel Kato v Nuulu Nalwoga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2013)
  • Mustapha Ramathan and Osman Kassim Ramathan v Century Bottling Co Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 431 of 2006)
  • Phoenix Logistics (U) Ltd v Medical Products (U) Ltd and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 177 of 2005)
  • Charles Lwanga v Centenary Rural Development Bank Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1999)
  • Jennifer Behinge, Rwanyinda Aurelia, Paulo Bagenzi v School Outfitters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1999)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Anupama Rao singh v Giuseppe Giamono & Anor (Civil Suit No. 120 of 2013) [2015] UGCommC 17 (12 January 2015)
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.