Ayub Talutambudde v Lubega Sulaiman (Civil Suit No. 299 of 2020)

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.

Holding

The High Court dismissed a suit for breach of tenancy contract after finding that the tenancy agreement produced in evidence was not a valid contract under the Contracts Act 2010. The court held that the English translation of the Luganda-language agreement contained serious distortions of the original text crafted to mislead the court, rendering the agreement questionable and the intention of its authors dubious. The agreement could not serve as the basis for legal remedies. The defendant's counterclaim was separately dismissed for want of prosecution.

Outcome

Both the plaintiff's suit and the defendant's counterclaim dismissed

Facts

On 8 October 2017, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a written tenancy agreement in Luganda for a 20-year tenancy of land at Salaama Road Makindye for a petrol station business. The plaintiff claimed he paid UGX 120,000,000 for the first 10 years and later attempted to pay UGX 60,000,000 as first instalment for the remaining period, which the defendant refused. The plaintiff sued for breach of contract and specific performance. The defendant filed a defence and counterclaim but did not appear at hearing. The court found significant discrepancies between the original Luganda agreement and its English translation. The defendant's lawyers' correspondence referred to an earlier agreement dated 9 March 2013, raising doubt about which agreement governed the parties' relationship.

Issues

1. Whether there is a valid tenancy contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant?
2. Whether there was breach of the tenancy agreement by any of the parties?
3. Whether there was misrepresentation to the Defendant by the Plaintiff?
4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

• Suit dismissed.
• Defendant's counterclaim dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Amendment Rules 2019.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Contracts Act 2010 s.10
• Civil Procedure Amendment Rules 2019 Order 17 rule 5

Cases cited (2)

• Ebbzworld Ltd & Anor v Rutakirwa (Civil Suit No. 398 of 2013)
• Nsubuga v Nakiganda & 2 Ors (Civil Appeal No. 154 of 2016)

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