Kukua Agriculture Limited v Tejani & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 113 of 2019)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

Court dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Although the applicant established a prima facie case with triable issues concerning the validity of the tenancy termination and obligations arising from the expired agreement, the court found the applicant failed to prove it would suffer irreparable injury. The court held that any losses the applicant might suffer could be adequately compensated by damages, and that the 2nd respondent, as an established commercial entity, had adequate resources to pay such damages if the applicant succeeded at trial.

Outcome

Application dismissed — no temporary injunction granted to restrain respondents from dealing with the land

Facts

In 2015, the applicant (Kukua Agriculture Limited) entered into a renewable four-year tenancy agreement with the 1st respondent (Ahmed Tejani) for land measuring 387 hectares. The agreement provided for rent review every two years, an absolute right to renew the tenancy, and a right of first refusal if the landlord wished to sell the land. On 29 November 2019, one day before the tenancy expired, the applicant wrote to the 1st respondent seeking renewal and enclosed a cheque for UGX 312,800,000. On 2 December 2019, the applicant received a letter dated 21 November 2019 informing it that the land had been sold to the 2nd respondent (Kinyara Sugar Ltd). The applicant then wrote to the 2nd respondent seeking to renew the tenancy, but the 2nd respondent refused and instead directed the applicant to vacate the land on 4 December 2019. The 1st respondent claimed he had offered the land to the applicant through Agili Partners in March 2018, but the applicant contended this notice was invalid because it was not addressed to its registered office or appointed agent. The respondents argued that the tenancy had expired because the applicant failed to negotiate rent for the next term 30 days before expiry as required by the agreement, and that the applicant's rights under the expired agreement could not be enforced.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction.
2. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury that cannot be adequately compensated by damages if the injunction is not granted.
3. Whether the balance of convenience favours the applicant or the respondents.
4. Whether the notice sent by the 1st respondent to Agili Partners was valid and effective under the tenancy agreement.
5. Whether the applicant's failure to negotiate rent for the next term before seeking renewal precluded it from renewing the tenancy.
6. Whether the applicant can enforce rights under an expired tenancy agreement to acquire a new tenancy.

Orders

• Application for temporary injunction dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Civil Procedure Rules O.41 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules O.41 r.9
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.33
• Judicature Act s.38

Cases cited (6)

• Rashid Abdul Hanallai v Adrisi (HCMA No. 11 of 2017)
• Kiyimba Kaggwa v Katende (1985) HCB 43
• Habib Punia & Sons v Agas (1968) EA 161
• Tonny Wasswa v Joseph Kakooza (1987) HCB 79
• NTCO Ltd v Hope Nyakairu (1992-1993) HCB 135
• American Cyanamid Co vs. Ethicon (1975) ALLER 504

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Magandazi Vincent J v Wakabi Justine I (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 0998 of 2025)

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