Wakilii

Kisaka v Nganda (Miscellaneous Cause 284 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 403 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion under Article 50 of the Constitution and the Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2019 alleging violation of constitutional rights
Decision
Application for enforcement of fundamental rights dismissed; matter determined to be contractual dispute between landlord and tenant

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

An application alleging violation of constitutional rights arising from a landlord-tenant dispute was dismissed. The court held that the respondent landlord did not seize the applicant's property but legitimately exercised his contractual right to inspect the premises before the tenant vacated as provided in the tenancy agreement. The applicant attempted to vacate without allowing inspection in breach of the agreement. The dispute was contractual in nature, not a constitutional matter warranting fundamental rights enforcement.

Outcome

Application for enforcement of fundamental rights dismissed; matter determined to be contractual dispute between landlord and tenant

Facts

The applicant was a tenant of the respondent landlord under a tenancy agreement dated 24 July 2022. On 23 November 2022, the applicant informed the respondent she would vacate on 23 December 2022, which the respondent accepted. On 10 December 2022, the applicant attempted to vacate early while the respondent was away from Kampala. The respondent instructed guards to prevent her departure until he could inspect the premises as provided in clause 2(i) of the tenancy agreement. The applicant's property was offloaded from the truck. The applicant claimed her property was seized, damaged, and stolen, and that she suffered torture and degrading treatment in violation of Articles 24, 26, and 27 of the Constitution. The respondent denied seizing property and stated he merely exercised his contractual right to inspect before the tenant vacated. A security deposit of UGX 1,200,000 had been paid.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent seized the applicant's property or infringed on the applicant's human rights
  2. Whether the respondent was entitled to inspect the premises before the applicant vacated
  3. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Enforcement of Fundamental Rights — Proper Subject Matter — Contractual Disputes Distinguished from Constitutional Claims
A dispute arising from a landlord-tenant contractual relationship does not constitute a violation of fundamental human rights warranting constitutional enforcement merely because a party characterises it as such. Litigants should not hide under violation of fundamental human rights to bring contractual actions to courts of law.
Contract Law — Tenancy Agreements — Landlord's Right to Inspect — Enforcement of Contractual Terms
Where a tenancy agreement provides that the landlord shall conduct a move-in inspection before the tenant vacates to determine repair and maintenance charges, the landlord is entitled to enforce that right by preventing the tenant from removing property until inspection is conducted. A tenant who attempts to vacate without allowing inspection breaches the tenancy agreement.
Constitutional Law — Deprivation of Property — Article 26 — Exercise of Contractual Rights Not Deprivation
A landlord's exercise of a contractual right to inspect premises before a tenant vacates, including preventing premature departure to enforce that right, does not constitute unlawful deprivation of property under Article 26 of the Constitution where the action is taken to enforce a lawful contractual term agreed by both parties.
Evidence — Standard of Proof — Civil Cases — Balance of Probabilities
In civil cases, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. A party alleging damage to property must adduce evidence that satisfies the court on the balance of probabilities that such damage occurred.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (2)

  • Sikuku Agaitano v Uganda Baati (HCCS No. 298 of 2012)
  • Kamo Enterprises Ltd v Krystalline Salt Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kisaka v Nganda (Miscellaneous Cause 284 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 403 (11 September 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.