Wakilii

Kuwe v Matovu & Anor (Civil Suit No. 177 of 2003)

High Court · [2012] UGHC 57 · 2012 Judgment for Plaintiff — Lease Forfeited AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for forfeiture of lease and damages for breach of lease covenants
Decision
Lease forfeited; 2nd Defendant's leasehold registration to be cancelled; defendants to be evicted within two months from date of judgment

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 55 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 55 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 59 citing cases on record, 39 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 plaintiff, as registered mailo proprietor, was entitled to forfeiture of the lease where the lessee unlawfully transferred the leasehold interest without the lessor's written consent as required by the lease covenant and failed to pay ground rent. Under the Registration of Titles Act s.66, the mailo proprietor is deemed the lessor with all reversionary rights and remedies. Transfer of a lease without lessor consent and non-payment of reserved rent constitute fundamental breaches entitling the lessor to re-entry and forfeiture.

Outcome

Lease forfeited; 2nd Defendant's leasehold registration to be cancelled; defendants to be evicted within two months from date of judgment

Facts

The plaintiff was the registered mailo proprietor of Block 29 Plot 124 land at Mulago, subject to a leasehold interest held by the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant failed to pay ground rent to the plaintiff as lessor. On 14 December 2000, the 1st defendant transferred his leasehold interest to the 2nd defendant without seeking the plaintiff's written consent as required by clause 4 of the lease agreement. The 2nd defendant was registered as proprietor of the lease on 8 August 2003. The plaintiff demanded payment of ground rent from both defendants but neither complied. Default judgment was entered against the 2nd defendant who failed to file a defence. The 1st defendant filed a defence but failed to attend the scheduling conference and the two scheduled hearing dates, resulting in the hearing proceeding ex parte against him.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against the 1st Defendant.
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is the rightful registered proprietor of the suit property and therefore the lessor of the lease interest.
  3. Whether the 1st Defendant lawfully transferred the lease interest to the 2nd Defendant.
  4. Whether the 1st Defendant breached the lease agreement for the lease.
  5. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • An order for forfeiture and or re-entry of the lease comprised in LRV 716 Folio 23 Plot 124 for non observance of the covenants of the lease agreement.
  • An order directing the Chief Registrar of Titles/Commissioner Land Registration to cancel the 2nd Defendant's lease and registration as proprietor thereof.
  • An order of eviction against the Defendants and or their agents, representatives, tenants or whoever is in occupation of the suit property with effect from 23rd May 2012.
  • Special damages of UGX 22,000,000.
  • General damages in the sum of UGX 198,000,000.
  • Costs of the suit.
  • Interest at 6% on special damages from 2003 and on general damages from the date of judgment.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Leasehold — Transfer of Lease — Requirement of Lessor's Written Consent
A lessee who transfers leasehold interest without obtaining the lessor's written consent as required by the lease covenant acts unlawfully, rendering the transfer void and constituting a fundamental breach of the lease agreement.
Land & Property — Mailo Land — Reversionary Rights — Section 66 Registration of Titles Act
Under the Registration of Titles Act s.66, a person registered as proprietor of a mailo interest is held by law to be seized of the reversion and to have all powers, rights and remedies to which a reversioner is entitled, including the right to enforce lease covenants and forfeit the lease for breach.
Land & Property — Leasehold — Implied Covenants — Payment of Rent
Section 103 of the Registration of Titles Act makes it an implied covenant for a lessee to pay reserved rent within 30 days whether or not there is formal demand, and section 105 makes it an implied covenant for any transferee of a lease to pay the rent and observe all covenants in the lease.
Land & Property — Leasehold — Forfeiture — Breach of Lease Covenants
Where a lessee transfers the lease without consent and fails to pay ground rent, the lessor is entitled to forfeiture and re-entry of the lease, cancellation of the transferee's registration as proprietor, and eviction of occupants from the suit property.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Elements Required
To establish a cause of action, three essential elements must be present: the plaintiff enjoyed a right; that right has been violated; and the defendant is liable. If all three elements are present, a cause of action is disclosed.
Contract Law — Damages — Special Damages — Proof Required
Special damages arising from loss of income must be strictly proved and properly assessed by the court. Loss of rental income is assessed on the basis of the value of the premises at the time, and the landlord must aver in pleadings what is alleged as the annual value and must be prepared to prove it.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (7)

  • Auto Garage & Ors v Motokov (No.3) [1971] EA 514
  • AG v Oluoch [1972] EA 392
  • Kampala Bottlers v Damaniko (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 22 of 1992)
  • Assist (U) Ltd v Italian Asphalt & Haulage & Anor (Civil Suit No. 1291 of 1999)
  • Uganda Breweries v Uganda Railways [2001-2005] HCB 24
  • George Kasedde Mukasa v Emmanuel Wambedde & Ors (Civil Suit No. 459 of 1998)
  • Moses Kizige v Muzakawo Batolewo [1981] HCB 66

Cases citing this judgment (30)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kuwe v Matovu & Anor (Civil Suit No. 177 of 2003) [2012] UGHC 57 (23 March 2012)
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.