Wakilii

Bukenya v Sajjad Butt (Civil Suit No. 58 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 223 · 2022 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of tenancy agreement with counterclaim for rental arrears
Decision
Plaintiff's suit dismissed; Defendant's counterclaim allowed with orders for payment of rental arrears, general damages, vacant possession, 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 court held that the doctrine of frustration of contract did not apply to excuse the tenant's non-payment of rent during COVID-19 lockdowns. The tenant's obligation to pay rent was unconditional under the tenancy agreement. The landlord's termination notice complied with the agreement and was lawful. The tenant breached the agreement by defaulting on rent payments and refusing to vacate after lawful notice. The tenant was not entitled to compensation for structural improvements made to the premises as the agreement expressly excluded such compensation unless specifically agreed in writing in advance.

Outcome

Plaintiff's suit dismissed; Defendant's counterclaim allowed with orders for payment of rental arrears, general damages, vacant possession, interest, and costs

Facts

The plaintiff tenant operated a kindergarten and day care on premises leased from the defendant landlord under a six-year tenancy agreement commencing November 1, 2016. The monthly rent was USD $1,500 payable three months in advance. The tenant made structural improvements to the premises. In March 2020, the Government of Uganda imposed nationwide lockdowns to curb COVID-19, closing all schools for a cumulative 22 months until January 2022. The tenant paid rent up to April 2020 but ceased payments thereafter, citing the lockdown's impact on his business. In October 2020, the landlord issued a termination notice requiring the tenant to vacate by January 31, 2021, citing rental arrears of USD $15,000. The tenant refused to vacate, claiming the termination was unlawful and seeking compensation for improvements. The landlord counterclaimed for rental arrears.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a lawful termination of the tenancy by the Defendant?
  2. Whether there was any breach of the tenancy agreement by either party?
  3. Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies sought in their respective pleadings?

Orders

  • The Plaintiff's suit against the Defendant is dismissed with costs.
  • The Counter-claim against the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant succeeds.
  • Mr. Bukenya shall immediately pay to Mr. Butt USD $45,000 on account of outstanding rent for thirty (30) months from May 2020 to October 2022 at USD $1,500 per month.
  • The Defendant is awarded general damages of USD $7,500 (equivalent to five months' rent) against the Plaintiff for breach of contract.
  • The tenant shall immediately vacate the suit premises and yield up the same to the Defendant in good and tenantable repair and condition.
  • Interest at the rate of 14% per annum is awarded on the principal outstanding rent of USD $13,500 as at January 29, 2021, calculated from the date of the institution of this suit to the date of this Judgment.
  • Interest at the rate of 14% per annum is awarded on the principal outstanding rent of USD $45,000 herein adjudged, calculated from the date of this judgment till the date payment is made in full.
  • The proceedings and Ruling in Misc. Applic. No. 025-2021 in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Mengo are hereby set aside.
  • The costs of the Counter-claim are awarded to the Defendant against the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Frustration of Contract — COVID-19 Lockdowns — Tenancy Agreements — Impossibility of Performance
The doctrine of frustration of contract does not apply to discharge a tenant from the obligation to pay rent during COVID-19 lockdowns where the tenant remained in uninterrupted occupation of the premises and the performance of the contract, though difficult or burdensome, was not rendered impossible or impracticable.
Frustration of Contract — Tests for Application — Foundation, Prevention, and Contemplation
To determine whether the doctrine of frustration applies, the court must consider: (1) what was the foundation of the contract; (2) was performance prevented; and (3) was the preventing event of such character that it cannot reasonably be said to have been in the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made. All three questions must be answered in the affirmative for both parties to be discharged from further performance.
Landlord and Tenant — Termination of Tenancy — Notice Requirements — Compliance with Agreement
A landlord's termination notice is lawful where it complies with the terms of the tenancy agreement, including the requirement to give three months' notice in writing and the right to re-enter where rent is in arrears for 21 days from the due date.
Landlord and Tenant — Tenant's Improvements — Compensation — Express Contractual Exclusion
A tenant is not entitled to compensation for structural alterations or capital improvements made to leased premises where the tenancy agreement expressly provides that such alterations will not be compensated by the landlord unless such compensation is specifically agreed to in writing in advance by the landlord.
Lis Pendens — Section 6 Civil Procedure Act — Proceedings Between Same Parties on Same Matter
No court shall proceed with the trial of any suit or proceeding in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit or proceeding between the same parties or between parties under whom they claim, where that suit or proceeding is pending in the same or any other court having jurisdiction in Uganda. Proceedings conducted in contravention of this rule are illegal and must be set aside.
Evidence — Competence of Witnesses — Property Manager as Agent
A property manager employed by a property management company acting as agent for a party to a suit is competent to give evidence on behalf of that party where the witness is conversant with the facts of the case and is authorized to give evidence on the party's behalf. There is no rule of law that evidence in a matter must be led only by the parties to the suit.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (5)

  • Makula International v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga [1982] HCB 24
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd v Silk Events Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 300 of 2021)
  • Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740
  • National Carriers Ltd v Panalpina (Northern) Ltd [1981] 1 All ER 161
  • Daniza Ltd v D. Light Design Uganda Ltd (Arbitration Cause No. PCCL/ARB/03/22)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bukenya_v_Sajjad_Butt_(Civil_Suit_No._58_of_2021)_[2022]_UGHCLD_223_(31_October_2022)
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.