Wakilii

Golf Course Holdings Ltd v Hub Entertainment Ltd (Originating Summons 3 of 2015)

High Court · [2015] UGCOMMC 36 · 2015 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Originating summons seeking judicial interpretation of contractual right to sell tenant's property to recover rent arrears following termination of tenancy and re-entry
Decision
Court granted declaration and order permitting plaintiff to sell defendant's property through court-approved auctioneer to recover rent 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 under clause 5(g)(iii) of a commercial tenancy agreement, a landlord who has lawfully re-entered premises following tenant's default in rent payment is entitled to sell the tenant's property located in the premises to recover rent arrears, costs and expenses. The contractual provision is mandatory and enforceable where the landlord has complied with the notice requirements and the seven-day waiting period after re-entry.

Outcome

Court granted declaration and order permitting plaintiff to sell defendant's property through court-approved auctioneer to recover rent arrears

Facts

The Plaintiff landlord and Defendant tenant entered into a tenancy agreement for premises at Garden City Shopping and Leisure Centre. The Defendant began defaulting on rent payments in May 2013. Despite discussions and a demand letter dated 4 July 2014, the Defendant failed to clear outstanding sums. The Plaintiff re-entered the premises on 26 September 2014. The Defendant had locked the premises until the Plaintiff removed the padlocks at the end of January 2015. A final 14-day notice was given by letter dated 28 January 2015. The rent arrears remained unpaid. The tenancy agreement contained a clause permitting the landlord to sell the tenant's property located in the premises to recover rent dues seven days after re-entry.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff has a right to sell the Defendant's property at the repossessed premises to recover rent monies due from the Defendant after termination of the tenancy, as provided for under the tenancy agreement.
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an order allowing the Plaintiff to sell the said property.
  3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit.

Orders

  • It is declared that the Plaintiff is entitled to sell the properties of the Defendant located in the repossessed premises to recover the rent due.
  • An order allowing the Plaintiff to sell the said property to issue.
  • Costs of the suit are granted to the Plaintiff, to be taxed in the ordinary manner.
  • The Plaintiff to take up the matter with the Execution Division to approve and avail an auctioneer to conduct the sale of the Defendant's said properties.

Rules and key headnotes

Landlord and Tenant — Commercial Tenancy — Right of Landlord to Sell Tenant's Property — Contractual Remedies for Rent Default
Where a commercial tenancy agreement expressly provides that upon re-entry following tenant's default, the landlord shall be at liberty to sell the tenant's property located in the premises to recover rent dues, costs and expenses, such provision is mandatory and enforceable provided the landlord has complied with the contractual notice requirements and the stipulated waiting period after re-entry.
Interpretation of Contracts — Commercial Agreements — Enforcement of Express Contractual Remedies
A contractual provision granting a landlord the right to sell a defaulting tenant's property to recover arrears is valid and enforceable as a commercial remedy agreed between parties, and the court will grant declaratory and mandatory orders to facilitate its exercise where the preconditions have been satisfied.
Originating Summons — Ex Parte Hearing — Failure to Appear Despite Service
Where a respondent has been duly served with an originating summons and fails to appear or file affidavit evidence controverting the applicant's affidavit, the court may proceed to hear the matter ex parte and treat the facts set out in the supporting affidavit as uncontroverted.

Legislation cited (1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Golf Course Holdings Ltd v Hub Entertainment Ltd (Originating Summons 3 of 2015) [2015] UGCommC 36 (4 March 2015)
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.