Wakilii

Kateeba v Turkmen & Another (Civil Suit 462 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 168 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of tenancy agreement
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff; Defendants ordered evicted and to pay USD 59,080 rental arrears plus general damages of UGX 100,000,000 with interest; counter claim dismissed

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 found that the defendants breached a commercial tenancy agreement by failing to pay rent arrears of USD 59,080 and by causing structural damage to the rented property beyond reasonable wear and tear. The force majeure defence based on COVID-19 failed due to lack of evidence. An eviction order was granted, together with special damages for unpaid rent, general damages of UGX 100,000,000 for loss of use and future repair costs, and interest on both heads of award.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff; Defendants ordered evicted and to pay USD 59,080 rental arrears plus general damages of UGX 100,000,000 with interest; counter claim dismissed

Facts

By a tenancy agreement dated 20 December 2017, the Plaintiff rented commercial premises at Plot 59 Kyambogo Road to the Defendants for two years commencing 2018, with rent of USD 3 per square meter payable six months in advance. The Defendants failed to pay rent and by December 2020 owed USD 59,080 in arrears. The tenancy expired in February 2020 but the Defendants remained in occupation without paying rent. The Defendants also caused structural damage to the property beyond reasonable wear and tear, requiring repairs costing UGX 97,176,522. The Defendants filed a defence claiming the agreement was renewed for one extra year and that their non-performance was due to COVID-19 force majeure, but adduced no evidence at trial. The 2nd Defendant filed a counter claim for breach and unjust enrichment but led no evidence in support.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendants breached the tenancy agreement?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • An eviction order issues against the Defendants in respect of the suit property.
  • The Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiff the sum of USD 59,080 being the outstanding unpaid rental arrears.
  • The Defendants shall pay interest on the unpaid rent at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 100,000,000.
  • Interest shall be payable on general damages at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded the costs of the suit.
  • The 2nd Defendant's counter claim is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Elements and Proof
A breach of contract occurs when a party to a binding agreement fails to perform or interferes with the other party's performance. The party alleging breach must prove non-performance of contractual obligations on a balance of probabilities.
Contract Law — Sanctity of Contract — Pacta Sunt Servanda
Parties to a contract and the court are bound by the terms of the contract. Courts lack the power to add to or subtract from contractual terms, and parties cannot unilaterally alter them. Non-fraudulent agreements must be observed according to the principle of pacta sunt servanda.
Contract Law — Force Majeure and Frustration — Burden of Proof
A defendant alleging force majeure or frustration as a defence to non-performance of contractual obligations bears the burden of adducing evidence to establish that unforeseen events beyond their control disabled them from performing. Mere assertion of force majeure without supporting evidence will not sustain the defence.
Evidence — Unchallenged Evidence — Effect of Failure to Rebut
Where evidence on a material or essential point is not challenged or rebutted by the opposing party, such evidence is deemed admitted as inherently credible and probably true.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Past Pecuniary Loss
Special damages relate to past pecuniary loss calculable at the date of trial, including past expenses and loss of earnings. Claims for anticipated future expenses such as repair costs not yet incurred cannot properly be claimed as special damages but fall to be considered under general damages.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Restitutio in Integrum
General damages are intended to restore the wronged party to the position they would have been in had there been no breach of contract. They include anticipated future loss, loss of use, loss of profit, physical inconvenience, mental distress, and items of normal loss presumed by law to arise naturally from the breach.
Contract Law — Tenancy Agreements — Obligations to Maintain Premises
Where a tenancy agreement requires the tenant to keep premises in good and tenantable repair and to deliver them in good condition save for reasonable wear and tear, the tenant's failure to do so and causing of structural damage beyond normal wear and tear constitutes breach of the tenancy covenant.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (15)

  • Cargo World Logistics Limited v Royale Group Africa Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 157 of 2013)
  • Michael Katungye v Fred Byamukama & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 706 of 2020)
  • Nsibambi Mudashiru v Kasule Joseph (High Court Civil Suit No. 244 of 2014)
  • Partizanski and Another v Sobetra (U) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 1740 of 2000)
  • Makubuya Enock Willy T/A Pollaplast v Songdoh Films (U) Ltd & Another (Civil Suit No. 349 of 2017)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Steven Mabosi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1995)
  • Ewadra Emmanuel v Spencon Services Limited (Civil Suit No. 22 of 2015)
  • Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850 at 855, [1853-60] ALL ER Rep 383 at 385
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Slaim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Gameca & Another v Steel Rolling Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 2228 of 2006)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v. Deo Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 293
  • Kampala District Land Board & George Mitala v Venansio Babweyana (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
  • Gulaballi Ushillani v Kampala Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1999)
  • Luzinda Marion Babirye v Ssekamatte & 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 366 of 2017)
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kateeba v Turkmen & Another (Civil Suit 462 of 2020) [2023] UGCommC 168 (8 December 2023)
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.