Wakilii

Banyenzaki T/a African pot Restuarant v Kibaaju (Civil Suit 278 of 2017)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 28 · 2024 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract arising from wrongful termination of tenancy agreement
Decision
Plaintiff's suit succeeded; defendant's counterclaim dismissed. Plaintiff awarded damages, interest, 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 High Court held that the defendant landlord wrongfully terminated a tenancy agreement by locking the plaintiff tenant out of restaurant premises without the required two months' written notice. The tenancy had been orally renewed and the tenant was not in arrears. The court awarded special damages of UGX 43,266,500 for business equipment and lost income, and general damages of UGX 30,000,000 for breach of contract, with interest and costs.

Outcome

Plaintiff's suit succeeded; defendant's counterclaim dismissed. Plaintiff awarded damages, interest, and costs.

Facts

The plaintiff operated a restaurant on premises rented from the defendant under a written tenancy agreement executed on 15 February 2015. The agreement provided for monthly rent of UGX 2,000,000 for the restaurant and UGX 200,000 for a store (after the first three months), payable quarterly in advance, for an initial period of two years. Upon expiration of the initial term in February 2017, the tenancy was orally renewed and the plaintiff continued paying rent. On 22 May 2017, the plaintiff found the premises locked with extra padlocks without any prior notice from the defendant. The plaintiff's business equipment and documents remained locked inside. The defendant claimed the plaintiff was in arrears of UGX 36,000,000 and counterclaimed for unpaid rent and storage costs. The plaintiff provided receipts showing he had paid rent and was not in arrears. The defendant failed to file witness statements or lead any defence evidence at the hearing.

Issues

  1. Who of the parties breached the terms of the tenancy agreement?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant.
  • Defendant to pay the plaintiff UGX 43,266,500 as special damages.
  • Defendant to pay the plaintiff UGX 30,000,000 as general damages for breach of contract.
  • Interest on special damages at 18% per annum from the date of filing suit until full payment.
  • Interest on general damages at 10% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Defendant to pay the taxed costs of the suit.
  • Counter claim by the defendant dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Tenancy Agreements — Termination — Notice Requirement
Where a tenancy agreement expressly requires either party to give two months' written notice before termination, a landlord who locks the tenant out of the premises without such notice acts in breach of the express terms of the contract.
Tenancy Agreements — Renewal — Implied Covenant
Where a written tenancy agreement contains an express covenant contemplating extension of the term but does not specify the mode of renewal, a renewal may be sought and granted in any manner agreed upon by the parties, including orally. Continued payment and acceptance of rent after expiration of the initial term evidences such renewal.
Burden of Proof — Counterclaim — Standard of Proof
In civil proceedings, a defendant asserting a counterclaim bears the legal burden of proving the facts on which the counterclaim is founded. Mere averments in a pleading unsupported by any material evidence are insufficient to establish a counterclaim.
Special Damages — Pleading and Proof — Lost Income
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved in evidence. Where a plaintiff proves the existence of running contracts to provide services and demonstrates that those contracts were frustrated by the defendant's breach, income lost from those contracts is ascertainable at the time of instituting suit and is capable of being awarded as special damages.
General Damages — Assessment — Breach of Contract
In assessing general damages for breach of contract, the court is guided by the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience suffered by the plaintiff, and the nature and extent of the injury. The purpose is to restore the aggrieved person to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred.
Exemplary Damages — Grounds for Award
Exemplary damages are awarded only in three categories of cases: where there has been oppressive, arbitrary, or unconstitutional action by servants of the government; where the defendant's conduct has been calculated to make a profit exceeding compensation payable; or where statute authorizes such an award. Exemplary damages are not available for ordinary breach of contract by a private landlord.
Default — Failure to Adduce Evidence — Closure of Defence
Where a defendant fails to file witness statements as directed by the court and fails to appear to lead defence evidence at the appointed time, the court may close the hearing under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules and proceed to determine the suit on the basis of the plaintiff's uncontroverted evidence.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (11)

  • United Building Services Limited v Yafesi Muzira T/A Quickest Builders and Co. (High Court Civil Suit No. 154 of 2005)
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v Tanzanite Corporation [2005] 2 EA 331 at p.341
  • Robert Cuossens v Attorney General (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • British Transport Commission v Gourley (1956) AC 185 at p. 212; (1955) 3 A11 ER 796 at p. 808
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1894) 9 Exch 341
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Rookes v Barnard [1946] ALLER 367 at 410, 411
  • Premchandra Shenoi and Anor v Maximov Oleg Petrovich (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2003)
  • Harbutt's 'placticine' Ltd v Wayne tank & pump Co. Ltd [1970] QB 447
  • Kinyera v the Management Committee of Laroo Building Primary School (High Court Civil Suit No. 099 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Banyenzaki T_a African pot Restuarant v Kibaaju (Civil Suit 278 of 2017) [2024] UGHCCD 28 (14 February 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.