Chowdhury v Uganda Electricity Board (Civil Appeal No. 62 of 2010)

Observed later treatment

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

By a majority, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The majority held that because the appellant's property had been expropriated and vested in Government under the expropriation laws and managed by the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board, the appellant could not enforce payment of rent arrears for that period. Only the Custodian Board could legally collect and sue for rent, so the letter of 18 September 1997 undertaking to pay US$80,000 lacked consideration and was contrary to the Expropriated Properties Act. Kavuma JA dissented, finding the tenancy was revived by statute, the appellant remained landlord, forbearance supplied consideration and no mistake vitiated the contract.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed by majority; appellant's claim for rent arrears failed

Facts

The appellant, a registered proprietor of Plot 15 Coronation Road, Gulu, entered into a two-year tenancy agreement with the respondent in 1970/1971. The appellant, an Asian, left Uganda before the agreement expired, following the expulsion of Asians in 1972. Her property was expropriated by the military regime and vested in the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board. The respondent remained in occupation until March 1998. The appellant obtained a repossession certificate dated 22 March 1994. After correspondence, the respondent by letter of 18 September 1997 undertook to pay US$80,000 as arrears of rent. In May 1998 it paid Shs 19,840,000 (about US$16,000), leaving a claimed balance of US$64,000. When no further payment was made, the appellant sued in the High Court for rent arrears, mesne profits, interest and costs. The High Court dismissed the suit, holding the undertaking lacked consideration and was made under mistake. The appellant appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the contract to pay rent arrears was supported by consideration.
2. Whether the contract to pay rent arrears was vitiated by mistake.
3. Whether the appellant is entitled to the remedies claimed.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed by a majority of two to one.
• Costs to the respondent in this Court and the High Court.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Assets of Departed Asians Act (Cap 83) s.21
• Assets of Departed Asians Act (Cap 83) s.3
• Expropriated Properties Act (Cap 87) s.2(2)(b)
• Expropriated Properties Act (Cap 87) s.10(1)
• Expropriated Properties Act (Cap 87) s.10(3)
• Expropriated Properties Act (Cap 87) s.2
• Evidence Act s.100

Cases cited (10)

• J.W. Kazoora v Rukuba (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1992)
• Magee v Pennine Insurance Co Ltd [1969] 2 All ER 891
• Jaffer Brothers Ltd v Mohammed Magid Bagaliwo and Others (Civil Appeal No. 43 of 1997)
• Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 All ER 98
• Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215
• Kasifa Namusisi v Francis Nyabatanzi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2005)
• Antaios Compania Naviera SA v Salen Rederierna AB (The Antaios) [1984] 3 All ER 229
• Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v H.M.B Kayondo and 2 Others (HCCS No. 545 of 1980)
• Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd vs South Port Corporation
• Viscountess Rhondda's Claim [1922] 2 AC 339 (HL)

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.

• Chowdhary v Uganda Electricity Board (Civil Appeal 27 of 2010)

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