Wakilii

God is Able Graphic Designers & Suppliers Limited v Damanico Properties Limited (Civil Suit 306 of 2021)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 225 · 2024 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 and wrongful eviction, with counterclaim for arrears of rent and storage costs
Decision
Plaintiff's suit dismissed. Defendant awarded UGX 19,540,000 plus interest and costs on the counterclaim

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 2 times 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

Held that the plaintiff breached the tenancy agreement by failing to pay rent arrears of UGX 6,640,000. The defendant lawfully terminated the tenancy by re-entry on 17 November 2015 due to the plaintiff's default but wrongfully detained the plaintiff's property for three months. Distress and termination are mutually exclusive remedies and cannot be exercised concurrently. Once the defendant terminated the tenancy by locking the premises, it could no longer distrain the plaintiff's goods for the same breach. The defendant is entitled to rent arrears and reasonable storage costs, offset by damages awarded to the plaintiff for wrongful detention.

Outcome

Plaintiff's suit dismissed. Defendant awarded UGX 19,540,000 plus interest and costs on the counterclaim

Facts

The plaintiff rented shop premises from the defendant under a tenancy agreement dated 1 January 2014 at a monthly rent of UGX 700,000. The plaintiff defaulted on rent payments from March 2014 onwards. On 17 November 2015, the defendant closed the shop due to rent arrears of UGX 6,640,000. The plaintiff continued to pay rent to the defendant's property manager rather than to the defendant's bank account as required by the tenancy agreement. On 3 December 2015, the defendant removed the plaintiff's property from the premises and stored it elsewhere. The plaintiff claimed wrongful eviction and loss of property valued at UGX 200,000,000. The defendant counterclaimed for rent arrears and storage costs totalling UGX 54,150,000. The plaintiff eventually collected the property on 18 May 2022.

Issues

  1. Whether either of the parties breached the tenancy agreement.
  2. Whether the plaintiff's eviction from the premises was lawful.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • Judgment entered for the defendant on the counterclaim.
  • Defendant awarded UGX 19,540,000 for arrears of rent and storage costs.
  • Interest awarded at 15% per annum from 2 June 2016 until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit and counterclaim awarded to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Breach of Contract — Burden of Proof of Payment
When the existence of a debt is fully established by the evidence, the burden of proving that it has been extinguished by payment devolves upon the debtor who offers such defence to the claim of the creditor. The debtor has the evidential burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment.
Tenancy — Implied Periodic Tenancy on Holding Over
If a tenant remains in possession of rented premises after the tenancy has expired, but with the implied or express consent of the landlord, the inference sensibly and reasonably to be drawn is that the parties intended to create a periodic tenancy on the same terms as those of the expired agreement. The periodic tenancy continues under the same terms that applied to the fixed term agreement except for the end date, which is not specified in a periodic agreement, but is superseded by a new month-to-month basis.
Agency — Ostensible Authority to Receive Payment
Payments made to a landlord's property manager instead of the landlord's specified bank account are not binding on the landlord where the tenancy agreement expressly requires payments to be made to the bank account and the tenant has express notification that the property manager lacks authority to receive payment. A person dealing with an agent who knows or has reason to believe that the transaction is contrary to the express authority of the agent's principal cannot credibly assert that he believed the agent had apparent authority.
Landlord and Tenant — Right of Re-entry for Non-payment of Rent
A landlord may peaceably re-enter rented premises without notice if rent is in arrears for thirty days. Locking premises occupied by a tenant entitled to exclusive possession constitutes re-entry where the tenant's possession is consequently terminated. The landlord need not evict the tenant; re-entry is established by taking physical possession to the exclusion of the tenant with an intention to terminate the tenancy. Taking possession that practically shuts down the tenant's business operations by denying access will be deemed to have been undertaken with an intention to determine the tenancy.
Landlord and Tenant — Distress and Termination as Mutually Exclusive Remedies
Distress for rent and termination of a tenancy are mutually exclusive remedies that cannot be exercised concurrently. A landlord cannot distrain and terminate the tenancy at the same time, nor can a landlord terminate the tenancy and then distrain, since distress is only available while the tenancy is alive. Once the tenancy is terminated, the landlord's only remedy is a suit for damages and arrears of rent. A landlord who has elected distress may not terminate the tenancy on the basis of the same breach on which the distress was founded.
Landlord and Tenant — Wrongful Detention of Tenant's Goods After Termination
Where a landlord terminates a tenancy by re-entry and subsequently takes possession of the tenant's goods, the landlord becomes an involuntary bailee of the goods and may be liable in conversion or for damages. It is an illegal and blatant abuse of process for a landlord to lock up premises to intimidate or coerce the tenant into paying rent. Where the landlord elects forfeiture, a simultaneous distress is illegal and will result in the landlord being liable to the tenant for the full extent of the tenant's damages.
Mitigation of Damages — Landlord's Duty After Termination
Following termination of a tenancy, a landlord has a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages by re-letting the premises and, if successful, crediting the rent received from the new tenant to the unutilised period of the existing tenant. A landlord cannot simultaneously collect unpaid rent owed for the remainder of the tenancy term as damages from the original tenant and monthly rent from a new tenant. Once the landlord re-lets the property to a new tenant, the original tenant's rent owed under the tenancy stops accruing.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (59)

  • Borham-Carter v Hyde Park Hotel [1948] 64 TLR
  • Masaka Municipal Council v Semogerere [1998-2000] HCB 23
  • Musoke David v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board [1990-1994] EA 219
  • Kyambadde v Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v AS Transporters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2004)
  • Weitherger v Englis (1916) All ER Rep 843
  • Pinson v Lloyds and National Provincial Foreign Bank Ltd [1941] 2 All ER 636
  • Joshi v Uganda Sugar Factory [1968] EA 570
  • Ben Byabashaija and another v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 134 of 1991)
  • Global Forwarders & Clearing Ltd v Henry Mugenyi t/a Kifaru High Court Bailiffs and Auctioneers (High Court Civil Suit No. 188 of 2002)
  • Richardson v Langridge (1811) 4 Taunt 128
  • Ladies Hosiery & Underwear Ltd v Parker [1930] 1 Ch 304
  • Javad v Aqil [1991] 1 WLR 1007
  • London Baggage Co Ltd v Railtrack Plc [2000] L & TR 439
  • Adler v Blackman [1953] 1 QB 146
  • Criterion Properties plc v Stratford UK Properties LLC [2004] UKHL 28
  • Thomas v Packer (1857) 1 N & H 669
  • Padwick Properties Ltd v Punj Lloyds Ltd [2016] EWHC 502
  • Lugogo Coffee Company Limited v Singo Combined Growers Limited [1976] HCB 92
  • Executrix of the Estate of the Late Tebajjukira and another v Stanzi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1988)
  • Erukana Kuwe v Vasrambhai Damji Vader [2003] 1 EA 117
  • Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch D 9
  • Musumba Joseph v Haji M Kasaka and Mbarara Auction Mart (1971) 1 ULR 222
  • Owiafe v Zubriski 2006 MBQB 209
  • Delane Industry Co Ltd v PCI Properties Corp 2014 BCCA 285
  • Souza Figueiredo & Co Ltd v George and others [1959] EA 756
  • Joy Tumushabe and another v M/s Anglo Africa Ltd and another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1999)
  • Male H Mabirizi K Kiwanuka and another v Owere Franco and three others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 2763 of 2014)
  • Sophie Nakitende v Mabu Commodities Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 117 of 2016)
  • Komakech Sam and seven others v Ayaa Corina and another (High Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2016)
  • Gusii Mwalimu Investment Co Ltd and others v Mwalimu Hotel Kisii Ltd [1995-1998] 2 EA 100
  • Semayne's Case (1604) 77 ER 194
  • Robert Cuossens v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 13 of 1993)
  • Erukana Kuwe v Isaac Patrick Matovu and another (High Court Civil Suit No. 177 of 2003)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
  • Charles Acire v M Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Storms v Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
  • Kabona Brothers Agencies v Uganda Metal Products & Enamelling Co Ltd [1981-1982] HCB 74
  • Kiwanuka Godfrey T/a Tasumi Auto Spares and Class mart v Arua District Local Government (High Court Civil Suit No. 186 of 2006)
  • Hungerfords v Walker (1989) 171 CLR 125
  • Alaka and Company Advocates v Metropolitan Properties Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 621 of 2007)
  • Power and City Contractors Ltd v LTL Projects (PVT) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 24 of 2012)
  • Sigrist et al v Keri McLean et al 2011 ONSC 7114
  • The Rio Claro [1987] 2 Lloyd's Rep 173
  • African Highland Produce Ltd v Kisorio [2001] 1 EA 1
  • Thompson Holdings Ltd v Haztech Fire and Safety Services 2016 SKQB 294
  • FM v DDA and SK 2017 CanLII 60075
  • Kiddle v Yajm [2022] QDC 82
  • Deer Valley Shopping Centre Ltd v Sniderman Radio Sales and Services Ltd [1989] AJ No 305
  • Janiak v Ippolito [1985] 1 SCR 146
  • Buczynski v McDonald (1971) 1 SASR 569
  • Emomeri Julius v Shell (U) Ltd [1997] HCB 58
  • BICC Plc v Burndy Corp [1985] Ch 232
  • Muscat v Smith [2003] EWCA Civ 962
  • Fearns (t/a Autopaint International) v Anglo-Dutch Paint & Chemical Company Ltd and others [2010] EWHC 2366
  • Federal Commerce & Navigation Co Ltd v Molena Alpha Inc (The Nanfri) [1978] QB 927

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

God is Able Graphic Designers & Suppliers Limited v Damanico Properties Limited (Civil Suit 306 of 2021) [2024] UGCommC 225 (19 June 2024)
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.