Wakilii

Kyazze v Bwengye (Civil Appeal 12 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 279 · 2021 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court judgment in wrongful eviction suit
Decision
Appeal partly allowed — illegal eviction finding upheld, but award for lost money set aside while general damages upheld

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 High Court held that a landlord must obtain a court order before evicting a tenant under the Rent Restriction Act s.6(1), even where rent is in arrears. The eviction without notice or court order was illegal. However, the court found that the tenant's properties were handed over to him despite his refusal to accept them. The award of UGX 3,000,000 for money allegedly lost was set aside for lack of proof, but general damages of UGX 4,000,000 for inconvenience caused by illegal eviction were upheld.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed — illegal eviction finding upheld, but award for lost money set aside while general damages upheld

Facts

The respondent was a tenant of the appellant. He was arrested on 10 August 2017. While he was in prison, on 4 September 2017, the appellant evicted him and removed his properties, storing them in a poultry house under construction. The respondent claimed he owed no rent; the appellant claimed rent arrears for June, July and August 2017. The respondent sued for wrongful eviction, compensation for spoilt property, and general damages. The trial magistrate found in his favour. The appellant appealed, arguing the respondent had defaulted on rent, making him a trespasser, and that she used reasonable force to evict him and handed over his properties.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant illegally evicted the respondent from the premises without a court order as required by the Rent Restriction Act.
  2. Whether the respondent received his properties after eviction.
  3. Whether the trial magistrate was justified in awarding general damages and compensation for money allegedly lost during eviction.

Orders

  • Appeal partly allowed and partly dismissed.
  • Finding of illegal eviction upheld.
  • Finding that properties were not handed over reversed — properties were handed over to the respondent.
  • Award of UGX 3,000,000 as monies lost during eviction rejected and set aside.
  • Award of general damages of UGX 4,000,000 for inconvenience upheld.
  • Each party to bear its own costs both on appeal and at the lower court.

Rules and key headnotes

Landlord and Tenant — Eviction — Requirement for Court Order
Under the Rent Restriction Act s.6(1), a landlord must acquire an order from court before repossessing any dwelling house or ejecting a tenant, even where the tenant has defaulted on rent.
Landlord and Tenant — Eviction — Notice Requirement
Where a landlord seeks to evict a tenant for rent default, notice of eviction must be served on the tenant. Eviction without notice or court order is illegal, and the use of reasonable force does not cure the illegality.
General Damages — Illegal Eviction — Inconvenience
General damages for inconvenience caused by illegal eviction are compensatory in nature and are awarded at the discretion of the court in respect of what the law presumes to be the natural and probable consequence of the defendant's wrongful act.
Burden of Proof — Damages — Strict Proof Required
A plaintiff claiming damages must prove their loss. It is not sufficient to merely plead particulars of loss without adducing evidence to establish the existence and quantum of the loss claimed.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (6)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Komakech Sam and Others v Ayaa Corina and Another (High Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2016)
  • Joy Tumushabe and Another v Anglo Africa Limited and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1999)
  • Kyomukama Salome v Katushabe Juliet (High Court Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2018)
  • Ahmed El Termewy v Hassan Awadi (High Court Civil Suit No. 95 of 2012)
  • Shell Uganda Limited v Achilles Mukiibi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kyazze v Bwengye (Civil Appeal 12 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 279 (9 July 2021)
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.