Wakilii

Makubuya t/a Pollaplast v Songdoh films (u) Ltd and Another (Civil Suit No. 349 of 2017)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 22 · 2023 Claim and Counterclaim Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of tenancy agreement and unlawful detention of goods with counterclaim for unpaid rent and utility bills
Decision
Both claim and counterclaim dismissed; each party to bear own costs

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations fading — 3 citing cases on record, 3 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 failed to prove that the parties had orally varied the written tenancy agreement to allow him to repair the machines at his own expense with a set-off against rent. The parole evidence rule bars oral evidence from varying or contradicting a written contract unless an exception applies. The plaintiff took possession of the machines and was bound by the written terms, which provided that the landlord would deliver fully functioning machines. The plaintiff's failure to refuse delivery or to vary the contract in writing was fatal to his claim. Both the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's counterclaim were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Both claim and counterclaim dismissed; each party to bear own costs

Facts

On 22 October 2016 the plaintiff entered into a four-year tenancy agreement with the first defendant for four plastic manufacturing machines and premises at UGX 7,000,000 per month. The agreement provided that the landlord would handover fully installed and functioning machines within three weeks and grant a two-month grace period for testing. The plaintiff alleged the machines were not functional, that he spent over UGX 32,978,000 repairing them pursuant to an oral agreement with the second defendant, and that the defendants then locked the premises and denied him access. The defendants denied the machines were defective, asserted the plaintiff had taken possession and used them, and claimed the plaintiff failed to pay rent and utility bills. The defendants terminated the tenancy in December 2016 for non-payment and counterclaimed for unpaid rent and electricity totaling UGX 17,077,425.

Issues

  1. Whether any of the parties was in breach of the tenancy agreement dated 22nd October 2016.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim dismissed.
  • Defendants' counterclaim dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Parole Evidence Rule — Oral Variation of Written Contract
Oral evidence is inadmissible to vary, add to, or contradict the terms of a written contract unless an exception applies, such as fraud, duress, illegality, misrepresentation, lack of consideration, lack of capacity, or mistake.
Variation of Contract — Requirements for Valid Variation
Where a party alleges oral variation of a written contract under section 67 of the Contracts Act 2010, the variation must be proved by agreement of both parties; where one party denies the variation, it cannot stand unless proved against the denying party, and the alleged variation must itself possess the characteristics of a valid contract including offer, acceptance, and consideration.
Sanctity of Contract — Pacta Sunt Servanda
Courts are bound by the terms of a contract freely entered into by the parties and lack the power to add to or subtract from those terms; the principle of sanctity of contract (pacta sunt servanda) requires that non-fraudulent agreements of parties must be observed.
Performance of Contract — Burden on Party Seeking Enforcement
A person seeking to enforce rights under a contractual agreement must show that he has fulfilled all conditions precedent and performed all terms that ought to have been performed by him; a party in breach of a tenancy agreement cannot counterclaim for enforcement of the same agreement.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (4)

  • D.S.S Motors Limited v Afri Tours And Travels Limited and Amin Tejani (HCT-00-CC-0012-2003)
  • L'Strange v Gracoub Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394
  • Lokhandwala v Hippo Industries and 2 Others (HCCS No. 183 of 2017)
  • Golden Construction Co Ltd v Stateco (Nig) Ltd (2014) 8 NWLR (pt 1408) 171

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Makubuya t_a Pollaplast v Songdoh films (u) Ltd and Another (Civil Suit No. 349 of 2017) [2023] UGHCCD 22 (20 February 2023)
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.