Wakilii

Asiimwe v Hajji Katende (Civil Appeal 52 of 2020)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 6 · 2024 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court decree in landlord-tenant dispute arising from wrongful eviction and property damage
Decision
Trial court judgment upheld; appellant's claims for special damages and increased general damages dismissed

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. 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

Appeal dismissed. The High Court held that the trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence and correctly declined to award special damages where the appellant failed to prove their value with supporting documentation such as receipts. The award of general damages of UGX 4,600,000 and half costs was not unreasonable, as the appellant bore partial blame for being in rent arrears at the time of the wrongful eviction.

Outcome

Trial court judgment upheld; appellant's claims for special damages and increased general damages dismissed

Facts

The appellant was a tenant of the respondent. She fell into rent arrears and was subsequently evicted by the respondent. During the eviction, the respondent confiscated and damaged the appellant's property. The appellant sued in the Chief Magistrate's Court seeking recovery of her property and damages for the wrongful eviction and property damage. She claimed special damages of UGX 46,192,000 based on a list of destroyed items. The trial court found the eviction wrongful and that the property was greatly damaged, but declined to award special damages due to lack of supporting evidence such as receipts. The trial court awarded general damages of UGX 4,600,000 and half costs, noting the appellant bore partial blame for being in rent arrears. The appellant appealed to the High Court challenging the quantum of damages and the costs award.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate erred in failing to award the appellant UGX 48,000,000 as special damages for loss of business and merchandise destroyed during wrongful eviction.
  2. Whether the trial magistrate erred in awarding general damages of only UGX 4,600,000 and half costs.
  3. Whether the trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence on record.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Special Damages — Burden of Proof — Requirement for Documentary Evidence
Special damages must be strictly proved. Where a party claims special damages for property destroyed but fails to adduce evidence such as receipts establishing the value of the property, the court cannot award special damages based on a mere list of items without supporting documentation.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Departure from Pleadings — Evidence Contradicting Pleadings
A party cannot make their case by leading evidence contrary to their pleadings. Where special damages are not pleaded in the plaint and values of allegedly destroyed items are introduced only during trial as an afterthought, such evidence constitutes a departure from pleadings and is not binding on the court.
Civil Procedure — Appeal — First Appellate Court — Standard of Review
The duty of a first appellate court is to re-evaluate the evidence on record and come to its own conclusion. However, it is not sufficient for an appellant to merely allege that the trial court did not properly evaluate evidence; the appellant must point out the specific error and convince the appellate court that correction of the error would materially affect the decision.
Tort Law — Damages — Appellate Review of Quantum — Grounds for Interference
An appellate court has no jurisdiction to interfere with damages awarded by a trial court unless the trial court proceeded on a wrong principle, incorrectly applied a legal principle, or the award is so unreasonably high or low as to constitute an erroneous estimate of damages.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion of Court — Partial Award of Costs
Under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, costs shall follow the event unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. Where a plaintiff succeeds but bore partial blame for the circumstances giving rise to the dispute, the court may in its discretion award only half costs. An appellate court has competence to review costs only where the appellant succeeds in the appeal.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (4)

  • Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
  • Father Nanensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tibebaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2020)
  • Adesina v Ojo (2012) 10 NWLR 552
  • FK Zaabwe v Orient Bank and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)

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.

  • [2026] UGCA 195 followed

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Asiimwe v Hajji Katende (Civil Appeal 52 of 2020) [2024] UGHCCD 6 (12 January 2024)
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.