Kagoro v Myrtha West (CIVIL SUIT No. 0086 OF 2007)
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 the defendant lessee breached the lease covenant by refusing to pay revised ground rent computed from a valuation report prepared by her own nominee valuer. Where rent remains unpaid for more than thirty days, the lessor is entitled under s.103(b) of the Registration of Titles Act to re-enter and forfeit the lease. The court declared re-entry, ordered forfeiture of the 99-year lease, and awarded arrears of UGX 36,234,375 computed at UGX 2,000,000 per annum until 2004, then UGX 5,625,000 per annum from the valuation date to judgment.
Outcome
Lease forfeited for non-payment of rent; lessor entitled to re-enter demised premises; arrears of ground rent awarded to plaintiff with interest and costs
Facts
The plaintiff lessor held freehold title to land from which he leased a 99-year leasehold (commencing 1966) to Harry West, later administered by the defendant. The lease required ground rent revision every 15 years not exceeding one-twentieth of the unimproved land value. In 1996 the parties failed to agree revised rent. In 2000 the lessee deposited UGX 2,000,000 as proposed rent, which the plaintiff accepted for that year only. In 2004 the defendant's lawyers proposed professional valuation to determine unimproved value and nominated a valuer, Mr. Balinda Birungi. The valuer assessed the property at UGX 750,000 per acre. The plaintiff computed revised ground rent at UGX 5,625,000 per annum (one-twentieth of unimproved value). The defendant's lawyers refused this amount, stating it did not make economic sense, and insisted on UGX 2,000,000. The defendant made no further payment despite demands, and attempted to sell her leasehold interest without the plaintiff's consent. The plaintiff brought suit for arrears, re-entry, and forfeiture. The defendant failed to file a defence and interlocutory judgment was entered.
Issues
- Whether the Defendant is in breach of the lease agreement.
- Whether the Plaintiff can lawfully re-enter the leased property for non-payment of rent.
- What other remedies are available.
Orders
- The Court hereby declares a re-entry onto the suit property by the Plaintiff; thereby forfeiting the lease.
- The Registrar of Titles is hereby ordered to note the said re-entry and vacate the forfeited leasehold encumbrance from the freehold title.
- The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the sum of UGX 36,234,375 as arrears of rent outstanding from the forfeited property.
- The Defendant shall pay costs of this suit.
- Interests shall accrue on the decretal sum from the date of the suit until payment.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
- Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.102(a)
- Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.103(b)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.8
- Civil Procedure Rules O.36 r.2(b)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.