Wakilii

Kiwanuka and Anor v Franco and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2763 of 2014)

High Court · [2015] UGHCEBD 1 · 2015 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to cancel distress for rent certificate and return distressed properties arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 2469 of 2014
Decision
Distress for rent certificate cancelled; distressed properties to be returned to applicants; applicants remain evicted as trespassers

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 distress for rent can only be levied where a landlord-tenant relationship subsists. After a tenancy expires, the former tenant becomes a trespasser and distress for rent is not available. The certificate to levy distress issued by the Registrar Execution was illegal, as only a Chief Magistrate or Magistrate Grade 1 has jurisdiction to issue such certificates under the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act. However, the landlord was entitled to evict the applicants as trespassers using reasonable force and to remove their property from the premises.

Outcome

Distress for rent certificate cancelled; distressed properties to be returned to applicants; applicants remain evicted as trespassers

Facts

The applicants had entered into a tenancy agreement with the 2nd respondent in 2012. After the tenancy expired, the applicants remained in possession. The landlord applied to the Registrar Execution Division and obtained a certificate to levy distress for rent. The 1st respondent, acting as bailiff, executed the certificate and distrained the applicants' properties. The applicants applied to court seeking cancellation of the certificate and return of their properties, arguing the certificate was illegal because the tenancy had terminated, the Registrar had no jurisdiction to issue it, and the bailiff had not complied with statutory requirements.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents' distress against the applicants and all related actions were lawful.
  2. What remedies are available to the applicants?

Orders

  • The certificate to levy distress for rent is set aside.
  • The 1st Respondent shall immediately return to the Applicants all properties taken under distress for rent.
  • The Applicants are awarded damages in the sum of UGX 1,000 for wrongful distress for rent.
  • The Applicants are not entitled to return to the premises.
  • The Applicants are awarded costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Landlord and Tenant — Distress for Rent — Requirement of Subsisting Tenancy
Distress for rent is only permissible where a relationship of landlord and tenant subsists between the parties. After a tenancy determines by effluxion of time, the former tenant becomes a trespasser and distress for rent cannot be levied, notwithstanding that the former tenant remains in possession.
Distress for Rent — Jurisdiction to Issue Certificate — Magistrate's Court Only
Under section 2 of the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act, only a Chief Magistrate or Magistrate Grade 1 has jurisdiction to issue a certificate authorising a bailiff to levy distress for rent. A Registrar of the Execution Division has no such jurisdiction, and any certificate issued by a Registrar is illegal and without jurisdiction.
Landlord and Tenant — Eviction of Trespasser — Reasonable Force
Where a tenant remains in possession after the expiry or termination of a tenancy and becomes a trespasser, the landlord may evict the trespasser using no more force than is reasonably necessary. The landlord may also remove the trespasser's property from the premises to leave the premises vacant.
Landlord and Tenant — Contractual Right to Distrain After Tenancy Ends — Not Enforceable in Uganda
A contractual provision purporting to confer on a landlord the right to levy distress for rent after the termination of the tenancy is not enforceable in Uganda, as there is no statutory extension of the common law right to distrain beyond the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship.
Execution — Registrar's Powers — Limited to Enforcement of Decrees and Orders
The Execution Division has no jurisdiction to sit as a court of first instance. Its remit is consequential and restricted to the enforcement of decrees or orders issued by other courts. Jurisdiction is strictly a creature of specific law and cannot be assumed or usurped.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (7)

  • Souza Figueiredo & Co. Ltd. v George and Others [1959] EA 756
  • Tumushabe and Another v Anglo Africa Ltd and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1999)
  • Jackson v Courteneou (1857) 8 E&B 8
  • Scott v Matthew Brown & Co. Ltd (1884) 51 LT 746
  • Shaw v Chairitle (1850) Cor & Kir 21
  • Hemming v Stoke Pages Golf Club Limited and Another [1920] 1 KB 720
  • Harvey v Brudges 14 M & W 437

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiwanuka and Anor v Franco and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2763 of 2014) [2015] UGHCEBD 1 (25 May 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.