Wakilii

Lwanga and Another v Muzira (Civil Appeal 104 of 2017)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 208 · 2024 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court decision dismissing application for distress for rent
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs; trial court's dismissal of the distress for rent application affirmed

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

Held that the trial Magistrate correctly found that the tenancy agreement had ceased by December 2014 and was not subsisting when the distress for rent application was filed in May 2015. The appellants failed to adduce sufficient evidence to rebut the respondent's assertion that he had paid all rent due and that the tenancy had ended. The photographic evidence did not establish that the respondent was still operating his business or that his property remained on the premises. The first appellate court must re-evaluate evidence and come to its own conclusion, but in this case the trial court's findings were supported by the evidence on record.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs; trial court's dismissal of the distress for rent application affirmed

Facts

The appellants instituted proceedings under the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act seeking UGX 1,200,000 in rent arrears (eight months at UGX 150,000 per month from October 2014 to May 2015) and an eviction order against the respondent. The appellants claimed a tenancy existed with monthly rent of UGX 150,000, that the respondent last paid in September 2014, and remained on the premises until May 2015. The respondent denied the allegations and averred that the tenancy ended in December 2014 when he had fully paid all rent due, but the first appellant refused to issue receipts or renew the tenancy. The respondent's business on the premises was car parking. The appellants filed a supplementary affidavit through an LC1 Secretary stating he was called on 30 October 2015 to witness removal of the respondent's property, but the vehicle had left. Photographs were taken but did not clearly show the respondent's property on the premises. The trial Chief Magistrate dismissed the application with costs on 26 October 2017, finding the tenancy had ceased by December 2014.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned trial Magistrate erred in finding that the supplementary affidavit supported the respondent's assertion that the tenancy had ended.
  2. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in holding that the tenancy agreement had expired by the time the application was filed.
  3. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in finding that the tenancy ended in December 2014 when the appellants claimed rent was owed until May 2015.
  4. Whether the trial Magistrate was biased in relying on the respondent's evidence and ignoring the appellants' evidence.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Decision of the lower court (dismissal of the distress for rent application) upheld.
  • Costs of the appeal and of the proceedings in the lower court awarded to the respondent.
  • Slip rule applied to correct accidental error (May 2025 corrected to May 2015).

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appellate Jurisdiction — Duty of First Appellate Court — Re-evaluation of Evidence
The duty of a first appellate court is to reconsider all material evidence that was before the trial court and, while making allowance for the fact that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses, come to its own conclusion on that evidence. The court must consider the evidence on any issue in its totality and not any piece in isolation.
Evidence — Evidentiary Value of Photographic Evidence — Burden of Proof in Tenancy Disputes
Where photographs are tendered to prove that a tenant's property remained on premises and the business was still operating, but the photographs do not reveal identifiable property and show premises with overgrown grass or unused appearance, the photographs fail to discharge the evidential burden and instead support the assertion that the tenancy had ceased and the premises were no longer in use for the stated business purpose.
Evidence — Evidence from the Bar — Inadmissibility of Facts Stated in Submissions Not Proved by Affidavit
Statements of fact contained in written submissions but not supported by affidavit evidence on the court record constitute evidence from the bar and cannot be relied upon by the court in making its findings. Only facts properly placed on record through sworn evidence are admissible.
Land & Property — Landlord and Tenant — Distress for Rent — Subsistence of Tenancy as Prerequisite
An action for distress for rent under the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act is incompetent where the tenancy agreement had expired and was not subsisting at the time the application was filed. A landlord must establish that the tenancy was still in existence at the date of instituting proceedings for rent arrears.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lwanga and Another v Muzira (Civil Appeal 104 of 2017) [2024] UGHCCD 208 (19 December 2024)
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.