Wakilii

Jesani Investiments Limited v Leaf Tabocco and Commodities Limited (Civil Suit No. 767 of 2016)

High Court · [2021] UGCOMMC 42 · 2021 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of repair costs and damages for breach of tenancy agreement
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff with special damages, loss of rent, general damages, interest, and costs awarded against the Defendant

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

Held that a tenant under a commercial lease is obligated by express covenant to repair damage and restore premises to their original condition at lease expiration, save for reasonable wear and tear. Where the tenant failed to perform repairs despite contractual obligation, the landlord was entitled to recover actual repair costs as special damages and loss of rent during the repair period. Special damages need not be proved by documentary evidence alone; cogent verbal evidence of items, quantities, and costs suffices. The court awarded UGX 75,762,380 as special damages (proven through Bills of Quantities prepared by an engineer), USD 48,940.2 representing three months' lost rent, and UGX 20,000,000 as general damages.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff with special damages, loss of rent, general damages, interest, and costs awarded against the Defendant

Facts

The Plaintiff landlord owned warehouses at Bweyogere Namanve. On 20 August 2013, the Defendant tenant rented three warehouses and on 1 September 2013 rented four additional warehouses for two years each at USD 6.25 per square meter. The tenancy agreements required the tenant to deliver premises back in the state found, reasonable wear and tear excepted, and to repair any damage caused by negligence or non-natural use. Upon lease expiration, the Plaintiff discovered extensive damage including unpainted walls (interior and exterior), damaged door shutters and PVC pipes knocked by forklifts, and depressed paving damaged by heavily loaded trucks. The Plaintiff prepared Bills of Quantities totaling UGX 75,762,380 and demanded the Defendant perform repairs. The Defendant initially denied any obligation, though later offered UGX 20,000,000 and claimed to have intended repairs, but took no action. After two months' delay, the Plaintiff completed repairs in December 2014. During the repair period, the Plaintiff could not re-let the warehouses.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant was obliged to carry out repairs of the occupied premises at the determination of the tenancy with the Plaintiff.
  2. Whether the Defendant is liable to refund UGX 75,772,380/= or any money at all to the Plaintiff on account of money expended to repair the warehouse.

Orders

  • The Defendant to pay the Plaintiff UGX 75,762,380/=.
  • The Defendant to pay the Plaintiff USD 48,940.2 equivalent to 3 months' rent.
  • The Defendant to pay UGX 20,000,000/= as general damages.
  • Interest on UGX 75,762,380/= at the rate of 20% per annum from December 2014 till payment in full.
  • Interest on USD 48,940.2 and UGX 20,000,000/= at 6% per annum from date of judgment till payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Tenancy Agreements — Tenant's Repair Obligations — Interpretation of Express Covenants
A tenant who expressly covenants to deliver premises in the state found at commencement (save for reasonable wear and tear) and to repair damage caused by negligence or non-natural use is obligated to perform those repairs at lease expiration. The absence of a clause recording pre-existing defects supports the inference that premises were in good order at commencement.
Breach of Contract — Tenant's Failure to Repair — Landlord's Right to Self-Help and Recovery
Where a tenant breaches a covenant to repair and fails to act after reasonable notice, the landlord may perform the repairs and recover the cost as special damages, provided the cost is proven to the required legal standard.
Special Damages — Proof Without Documentary Evidence
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, but need not always be proved by documentary evidence. Cogent verbal evidence describing items, quantities, and costs is sufficient where the witness has personal knowledge and expertise. A Bills of Quantities prepared by a qualified engineer constitutes sufficient proof in the absence of rebuttal evidence.
Loss of Rent — Quantification Where Premises Unmarketable Due to Breach
A landlord deprived of the ability to re-let premises due to a tenant's breach of repair obligations is entitled to damages for loss of rent during the period reasonably required to complete repairs. The quantum is computed by reference to the rent the breaching tenant had been paying, multiplied by the months during which the premises remained unmarketable.
Interest on Special Damages — Commercial Context
A commercial landlord deprived of the use of money expended on repairs caused by tenant's breach is entitled to interest at a commercial rate from the date expenditure was incurred. An award of 20% per annum may be appropriate where the claimant is a commercial entity and funds were tied up in remedying the defendant's default.

Cases cited (7)

  • Gapco (U) Ltd vs. As Transporters Ltd
  • Kampala City Council v Nakaye [1972] EA 446
  • Nsubuga v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 13 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 170 of 1993)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Stephen Mabosi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1996)
  • Harbutts Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tanks Pump Co Ltd [1970] 1 Ch B 447

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jesani Investiments Limited v Leaf Tabocco and Commodities Limited (Civil Suit No. 767 of 2016) [2021] UGCommC 42 (24 August 2021)
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.