Wakilii

General Industries (U) Limited and Another v Nanakasa Traders (U) Limited and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 668 of 2013)

High Court · [2020] UGCOMMC 158 · 2020 Judgment for Defendants AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of tenancy agreement, eviction, recovery of rent arrears, and damages
Decision
Suit dismissed with costs to the defendants, save for an order requiring defendants to pay Shs 10,000,000/= for demolition of one toilet

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 defendants did not breach the tenancy agreement. The plaintiffs failed to prove that defendants breached obligations regarding use of premises, removal of stalls, construction of toilets, or presence of sub-tenants. The court found no contractual obligation requiring removal of structures. The counterclaim for unutilized rent was dismissed as the amount was properly applied to the defendants' two-month overstay. The suit was dismissed with costs to the defendants, save for an order requiring defendants to pay Shs 10,000,000/= for demolition of one toilet.

Outcome

Suit dismissed with costs to the defendants, save for an order requiring defendants to pay Shs 10,000,000/= for demolition of one toilet

Facts

The plaintiffs leased 1.5 acres of land to the 1st defendant for two years from 29 June 2011 at Shs 3,000,000/= per month (total Shs 72,000,000/=), which was fully paid. The tenancy agreement permitted establishment of a market on the premises. The defendants operated a market and constructed a toilet. The tenancy expired on 29 June 2013, and defendants gave notice of termination on 20 July 2013, vacating by 31 August 2013. The plaintiffs claimed breach for failure to remove market stalls, two toilets, and sub-tenants, and sought Shs 118,000,000/= in rent arrears under an unsigned draft agreement. Evidence showed the plaintiffs subsequently entered tenancy agreements with persons allegedly left behind by defendants.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendants breached the terms of the tenancy Agreement between them and the Plaintiff.
  2. Whether the Defendants are entitled to Ugx. 6,000,000/= being unutilized rent.
  3. Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies prayed for.

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed.
  • The Defendants are ordered to pay Shs 10,000,000/= for costs of demolition of the 1st toilet and restoration of the land.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the Defendants.
  • The prayer for an eviction order is denied.
  • The prayer for a permanent injunction is denied.
  • The claim for special damages of Shs 118,000,000/= is dismissed.
  • The claim for general damages is dismissed.
  • The counterclaim for Shs 6,000,000/= is dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Breach of Contract — Contractual Obligations — Proof of Breach
Breach of contract occurs when one party fails to fulfill obligations imposed by the terms of the contract, and can only be based on the contractual terms signed by the parties, not on extraneous factors or obligations not created by the contract.
Tenancy Agreements — Use of Premises — Consent
Where a tenancy agreement expressly permits a specific use of premises, no additional consent is required from the landlord for that use, and the tenant's exercise of the permitted use does not constitute breach of contract.
Tenancy — Fixtures — Obligation to Remove
Unless a tenancy agreement specifically provides otherwise, a tenant is under no contractual obligation to remove fixtures or structures erected for the purpose of the permitted use at the end of the tenancy, even where such structures may cause inconvenience to the landlord.
Damages — Entitlement — Proof of Breach
Under section 61(1) of the Contracts Act 2010, a party is entitled to compensation for breach of contract only where breach is established; where no breach is proved, no damages or other remedies flow to the party alleging breach.
Special Damages — Proof — Unsigned Agreements
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved; a claim for special damages based on an unsigned and unexecuted agreement cannot succeed, as such an agreement is not valid and enforceable.
Burden of Proof — Civil Cases
In civil cases, the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts or alleges a fact; the other party is only called to dispute or rebut what the asserting party has proved on a balance of probabilities.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (8)

  • United Building Services Ltd v Yafesi Muzira (Civil Suit No. 154 of 2005)
  • Mamba Point Limited v Domus Aurea Limited (Civil Suit No. 638 of 2004)
  • Sebuliba v Cooperative Bank [1982] HCB 129
  • ATC Uganda Limited v Kampala Capital City Authority (Civil Suit No. 323 of 2018)
  • ATC Uganda Limited v Kampala Capital City Authority (Civil Suit No. 23 of 2018)
  • Jarvis v Moy, Davies, Smith, Vandervell & Co [1936] 1 KB 405
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1843-60) All ER 461
  • Kampala District Land Board and Another v Venansio Babweyaka (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

General Industries (U) Limited and Another v Nanakasa Traders (U) Limited and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 668 of 2013) [2020] UGCommC 158 (30 September 2020)
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.