Wakilii

Marion Akankwasa v Micheal Baligwa (Civil Suit No. 564 of 2013)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 280 · 2017 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of tenancy agreement. Judgment entered following interlocutory judgment on 8 November 2016 under Order 9 rule 8 CPR after defendant failed to file defence. Suit set down for formal proof.
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of plaintiff for breach of tenancy agreement. Defendant ordered to pay rent arrears, mesne profits, special and general damages with interest at court rate and costs.

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

In a breach of tenancy agreement claim where defendant failed to defend, the court held defendant liable for rent arrears, mesne profits, and special damages. Court awarded USD 10,000 rent arrears, USD 22,000 mesne profits for 11 months wrongful possession, and special damages of UGX 5,341,849 (security, water, bailiff costs). General damages of UGX 30,000,000 awarded for inconvenience. Interest at court rate of 6% per annum awarded from judgment date.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of plaintiff for breach of tenancy agreement. Defendant ordered to pay rent arrears, mesne profits, special and general damages with interest at court rate and costs.

Facts

The plaintiff, registered proprietor of premises at Plot 107 Block 244 Muyenga, let the property to the defendant for 5 years at USD 1,500 per month for first 2 years and USD 2,000 per month for next 3 years. By 23 June 2014, defendant was in arrears of 2 months' rent and had failed to pay utilities, made unauthorized alterations, failed to obtain fire insurance, and rendered premises uninhabitable. Plaintiff gave 3 months' notice to rectify breaches or vacate. Defendant neither remedied breaches nor paid rent during notice period. After Makindye Chief Magistrates Court ordered defendant to vacate on 20 March 2015, defendant still refused to leave. Plaintiff secured execution through High Court Execution Division and defendant was finally evicted by bailiffs on 7 September 2015, after 11 months in wrongful possession beyond notice expiry.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant breached the terms of the tenancy agreement.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought in the plaint.

Orders

  • The defendant pays USD 10,000 being rent arrears for 5 months.
  • Mesne profits of USD 22,000 to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
  • UGX 5,341,849 as special damages awarded to plaintiff.
  • General damages of UGX 30,000,000 awarded to plaintiff.
  • Interest on all awards at court rate of 6% per annum from date of judgment till payment in full.
  • Defendant to bear costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Tenancy Agreements — Failure to Pay Rent and Utilities
A tenant who fails to pay rent as agreed, refuses to pay utility bills consumed, fails to obtain required insurance, and renders premises uninhabitable commits fundamental breaches of a tenancy agreement entitling the landlord to terminate and claim damages.
Land & Property — Mesne Profits — Assessment — Wrongful Possession After Notice to Vacate
Mesne profits are assessed from when a tenant's right to possession ends (expiry of notice period) until actual vacation of premises. Where tenant remains in wrongful possession despite court order to vacate, mesne profits are calculated at the contractual rent rate for the entire period of wrongful occupation.
Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Burden of Proof — Ex Parte Proceedings
Where interlocutory judgment is entered under Order 9 rule 8 CPR due to defendant's failure to file defence and matter proceeds to formal proof, the burden remains on plaintiff to prove the case on balance of probabilities despite ex parte nature of proceedings.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Pleading and Proof — Particularity Required
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved with supporting documentary evidence. Claims without proper receipts, invoices, or identification of the source entity will not be awarded even where generally pleaded.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment — Inconvenience and Stress from Breach of Tenancy
General damages are compensatory for inconvenience, stress, and suffering caused by defendant's breach and refusal to comply with court orders. Assessment takes into account plaintiff's age, prolonged litigation, costs of multiple enforcement proceedings, and degree of disruption to plaintiff's life.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Discretionary Award — Court Rate in Absence of Agreed Rate
Where a tenancy agreement contains no agreed interest rate for breach, court will exercise discretion to award interest at court rate of 6% per annum from judgment date on rent arrears, mesne profits, special damages, and general damages. The basis is that defendant has kept plaintiff out of her money and ought to compensate accordingly.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (17)

  • Kiwalabye Stephen v Kifamba John Musoke (High Court Civil Suit No. 458 of 2012)
  • Kityo v Eriya Kaddu [1982] HCB 58
  • Emmanuel Kyoyeta v Emmanuel Mutebi (High Court Civil Suit No. 787 of 2014)
  • Uganda Telecom v Tanzanite Corporation [2005] EA 351
  • Annet Zimbeiha v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 0109 of 2017)
  • George Kasedde Mukasa v Emmanuel Wambedde & 4 Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 459 of 1998)
  • Paul Kalule v Losira Nonozi [1974] HCB 202
  • Elliot v Boynton [1924] 1 Ch 256 (CA)
  • Clifton Securities Ltd v Huntley and Others [1948] 2 All ER 283
  • Thunderbolt Technical Services Ltd v Apedu & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 340 of 2009)
  • Sietco v Noble Builders (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1995)
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 234 of 2011)
  • Joseph Constantine Steamship Line Ltd v Imperial Smelting Corporation [1942] AC 154
  • Akankwasa v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 0202 of 2013)
  • National Medical Stores v Penjuines Ltd (High Court Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2012)
  • Harbutts Plasticine Ltd v Wyne Tank & pump Co Ltd [1970] 1 Ch B 447
  • Groffin East Africa Fund LLC v Investec Uganda Ltd & 2 Ors (Civil Suit No. 374 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Marion Akankwasa v Micheal Baligwa (Civil Suit No. 564 of 2013) [2017] UGCommC 280 (30 May 2017)
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.