Wakilii

F.K.Motors (U) Ltd v Kabu auctioneers and court bailiffs & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2003.)

Court of Appeal · [2005] UGCA 3 · 2005 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from High Court dismissal of a suit for breach of tenancy agreement
Decision
Appeal partially allowed; post-eviction rent awards set aside and unlawfully attached property ordered returned to the appellant

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 of Appeal held that a bailiff who levies distress for rent without a certificate under section 2 of the Distress for Rent (Court Bailiffs) Act acts unlawfully, and that a landlord who instructs an uncertified bailiff brings the process within the Act, which must then be strictly complied with. A tenant who has been effectively evicted cannot be held liable for rent accruing after eviction. The claim for restitution on grounds of unjust enrichment failed as no sale occurred and it was never an issue at trial. The appeal partly succeeded: awards for rent after eviction were set aside and the unlawfully attached property was ordered returned.

Outcome

Appeal partially allowed; post-eviction rent awards set aside and unlawfully attached property ordered returned to the appellant

Facts

The appellant, a motor agent with a Hyundai franchise, was a tenant of the 2nd respondent at Old Port Bell Road, Kampala, at a monthly rent of US $2,500. The tenant defaulted and by the end of February 2001 rent arrears had accumulated to US $32,154. On 28 March 2001, the 1st respondent, a firm of auctioneers and court bailiffs, acting at the instance of the 2nd respondent's counsel, evicted the appellant's staff, locked up the premises and detained the appellant's property inside. The 2nd respondent's advocates had been instructed to levy distress, but instead instructed the 1st respondent, who carried out the distress without a certificate. Negotiations failed and the appellant sued for breach of contract/tenancy agreement. The High Court dismissed the suit and ordered the appellant to pay arrears and further rent for periods after eviction, prompting this appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st respondent acted lawfully in levying distress for rent without a certificate, and the consequences of doing so.
  2. Whether the appellant is entitled to restitution on account of the unjust enrichment of the 2nd respondent for levying distress on property far exceeding the rent arrears.
  3. Whether the appellant is liable to pay rent for the period after its eviction from the demised premises.

Orders

  • Appeal partially succeeds.
  • The award of US $2,500 plus VAT per month from April 2001 to November 2001 is set aside.
  • The award of US $1,500 per month from December 2001 to 30 June 2003 is set aside.
  • The property unlawfully attached must be returned to the appellant.
  • The appellant shall pay 1/3 of the costs here and below.

Rules and key headnotes

Distress for Rent — Requirement of Certificate for Bailiffs
A person who is not the landlord in person, his attorney or the legal owner of the reversion may not act as a bailiff to levy distress for rent unless authorised by a certificate; levying distress without such a certificate contravenes section 2 of the Distress for Rent (Court Bailiffs) Act and renders the bailiff liable to civil or criminal proceedings.
Distress for Rent — Landlord Instructing Uncertified Bailiff
Where a landlord or his attorney instructs a bailiff to levy distress for rent, the process falls within the ambit of the Distress for Rent (Court Bailiffs) Act and its rules, which must then be complied with in every respect; a landlord who could otherwise have evicted a trespasser by lawful means may not evade the Act by using an uncertified bailiff.
Eviction — Liability for Rent After Eviction
Any act of a permanent character done by the landlord or his agent with the intention of depriving the tenant of the enjoyment of the demised premises operates as an eviction; a tenant who has been effectively evicted and denied access to the premises cannot be held liable for rent accruing after the eviction.
Unjust Enrichment — Restitution Requires Proof
A claim for restitution founded on unjust enrichment cannot succeed where there is no evidence that the party benefited (for example where detained goods were merely locked up and never sold) and where the matter was never raised as an issue at trial.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Distress for Rent (Court Bailiffs) Act cap 76 s.2
  • Distress for Rent (Court Bailiffs) Act cap 76 s.3
  • Distress for Rent (Court Bailiffs) Act cap 76 s.4

Cases cited (3)

  • Joy Tumushabe and Another v Anglo-African Ltd and Another (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1999)
  • Sam Samaali Moit v Michael Osekeny (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2003)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

F.K.Motors (U) Ltd v Kabu auctioneers and court bailiffs & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2003.) [2005] UGCA 3 (21 November 2005)
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.