Wakilii

Dison Okumu v Arzoo International Limited and Another [2025] UGCOMMC 556

High Court · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of tenancy agreement and fraud, proceeding ex parte after defendants failed to appear despite proper service
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and costs awarded; defendants jointly and severally liable for rental arrears

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 first defendant breached a tenancy agreement by failing to pay rent from April 2020, accumulating arrears of USD 81,717. The defendants' acknowledgment of the debt and failure to prove payment or modification of the agreement established breach. The court declined to lift the corporate veil against the second defendant, finding fraud was not proved to the required standard. The plaintiff was awarded the outstanding arrears, general damages, and interest.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and costs awarded; defendants jointly and severally liable for rental arrears

Facts

On 3 November 2017, the plaintiff and first defendant entered into a tenancy agreement for premises at Plot 8 Windsor Loop, Kololo, with monthly rent of USD 4,500 for four years, increasing to USD 4,950 thereafter. From April 2020, the first defendant failed to pay rent, accumulating arrears of USD 81,717. Knight Frank Ltd, acting for the plaintiff, issued a demand letter on 1 September 2021. The defendants acknowledged the arrears in a letter dated 23 September 2021 and proposed instalment payments, but no payments were made. The defendants filed a defence and counterclaim but failed to appear at the hearing despite proper service, including substituted service through newspaper advertisement. The matter proceeded ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendants are in breach of the tenancy agreement, and if so, whether there are rental arrears due and owing by the Defendants to the Plaintiff.
  2. What remedies are available to the Plaintiff.

Orders

  • A declaration that the 1st Defendant breached the tenancy agreement dated 3rd November 2017.
  • The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay outstanding rental arrears of USD 81,717.
  • General damages of UGX 15,000,000 awarded to the Plaintiff.
  • Interest at 8% per annum on the outstanding arrears from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Elements of Proof
A party alleging breach of contract must demonstrate the existence of a valid contract, the obligations under that contract, non-performance by the other party, and resulting loss, with the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities.
Contract Law — Essential Elements of Valid Contract
For a contract to be valid and legally enforceable, there must be capacity to contract, intention to contract, consensus ad idem, valuable consideration, legality of purpose, and sufficient certainty of terms.
Contract Law — Modification of Contract — Burden of Proof
Where a party alleges that a written contract was modified by verbal agreement, the legal burden lies on that party to prove the alleged modification; in the absence of documentary evidence, the original written terms prevail.
Company Law — Lifting the Corporate Veil — Fraud
The corporate veil may be lifted under section 20 of the Companies Act in cases of fraud, but fraud must be proved strictly to a standard higher than the ordinary balance of probabilities; mere failure to pay contractual debts, without evidence of intentional misrepresentation or dishonest intent at the time of contracting, does not constitute fraud sufficient to pierce the corporate veil.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Pleading and Proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and particularly proved by documentary evidence such as receipts or invoices; they cannot be awarded on mere pleading without proof of the quantum claimed.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Discretion of Court
Where parties have not agreed on interest upon non-payment, the court has discretion under section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act to award interest at a rate that compensates the plaintiff for being kept out of money due, taking into account inflation and currency depreciation.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (8)

  • Greenboat Entertainment Ltd v City Council of Kampala (HCCS No. 0580 of 2003)
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (HCCS No. 542 of 2006)
  • Frederick Zaabwe v Orient Bank (SCCA No. 0004 of 2006)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 22 of 1992)
  • Eladam Enterprises Ltd v SGS (U) Ltd & 2 Others (CACA No. 20 of 2002)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1894) 9 Exch 341
  • Robert Cuossens v Attorney General (SCCA No. 8 of 1999)
  • Kinyera v the Management Committee of Laroo Building Primary School (HCCS No. 099 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dison Okumu v Arzoo International Limited and Another 2025 UGCommC 556 (28 November 2025)
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.