Wakilii

Megallies Distillers ( U) Ltd & Anor v Byensi & Anor (HCT-00-CC-MC 9 of 2009)

High Court · [2013] UGCOMMC 25 · 2013 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by Notice of Motion for release of moveable property seized under an order for distress for rent
Decision
Items not covered by the distress order ordered to be returned to the applicants within 14 days; items lawfully distressed to remain in custody pending resolution of the main suit (HCCS 75 of 2007); multiplicity of miscellaneous applications arising from the same dispute ordered closed

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 court held that an ex parte application for distress for rent under section 2 of the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act was not illegal in the absence of express procedural legislation, and a landlord may distress for rent as long as the tenant's property remains on the premises even after termination of the tenancy. Items seized that were not listed in the distress order must be returned to the applicants. Questions of set-off for improvements and validity of a second lease agreement are contentious matters requiring resolution in a regular suit. Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not apply to distress for rent proceedings.

Outcome

Items not covered by the distress order ordered to be returned to the applicants within 14 days; items lawfully distressed to remain in custody pending resolution of the main suit (HCCS 75 of 2007); multiplicity of miscellaneous applications arising from the same dispute ordered closed

Facts

The applicants entered into a tenancy agreement with the respondents in June 2006 for premises to establish a distillery. The applicants paid six months' rent and made renovations worth approximately UGX 57,000,000. A dispute arose when the respondents required the applicants to sign a second lease agreement in September 2006, which the applicants refused to honour, claiming it was unconscionable. In August 2007, the second applicant was ordered by police not to return to the premises following theft charges (which proved false). On 3 August 2007, an inventory of property on the premises was signed by both parties. On 4 October 2007, the respondents obtained an ex parte order for distress for rent from the Chief Magistrates Court Masindi, alleging the applicants had abandoned equipment on the premises. The applicants brought this application seeking release of the property, arguing there was no subsisting landlord-tenant relationship at the time of distress, that they were entitled to set off rent against improvements, and that the distress order did not cover all items seized.

Issues

  1. Whether the order for distress for rent was illegal for being made ex parte without notice to the applicants.
  2. Whether a landlord-tenant relationship existed at the time the order for distress was made.
  3. Whether the applicants were entitled to set off rent against improvements made to the premises.
  4. Whether items not listed in the distress order but retained by the respondents should be returned.
  5. Whether the procedure under Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules applied to execution of a distress order.

Orders

  • Items listed in the inventory but not covered by the distress order to be returned to the applicants or made good within 14 days.
  • Chief Registrar to cause a fresh inventory of the items legally distressed and assess the condition of their storage.
  • If storage not satisfactory, appropriate storage to be arranged at the respondents' costs.
  • Chief Registrar to cause the immediate and speedy trial of HCCS No. 75 of 2007 so that legal rights of the parties are determined.
  • All miscellaneous applications arising out of MA 044 of 2007 to be closed, including MA 064/2007, MA 065/2007, MA 002/2008, MA 102/2008, MA 078/2008, MA 011/2009, MA 012/2009, MA 097/2009.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Distress for Rent — Procedure — Ex Parte Applications
In the absence of express procedural legislation under the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act, an ex parte application for an order for distress for rent is not illegal, as the practice has been adopted to prevent the tenant from removing property on notice being given.
Distress for Rent — Landlord's Common Law Right — Property Remaining on Premises
At common law, a landlord may distress for rent as long as the tenant's property remains on the suit property, even where the landlord-tenant relationship has been brought to an end.
Distress for Rent — Strict Compliance — Items Not Listed in Order
A person who chooses to distress for rent under the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act must do so strictly in accordance with the provisions of that Act, and items seized that are not included in the distress order must be returned to the owner.
Execution — Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules — Inapplicability to Distress for Rent
Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which deals with execution of decrees, does not apply to proceedings for distress for rent, which arise from an application made to the court and not from execution of a decree.
Lease Agreements — Set-Off — Contentious Matters for Regular Suit
Questions of the validity of a second lease agreement and whether a tenant is entitled to set off rent against improvements made to premises are contentious matters that must be resolved in a regular suit and not in an interlocutory application.
Multiplicity of Suits — Section 33 of the Judicature Act — Court's Power to Close Related Applications
Under the general powers conferred by section 33 of the Judicature Act, the High Court may order the closure of multiple miscellaneous applications arising out of the same dispute where multiplicity of suits is contrary to the Act.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Wampewo Service Station v Italian Garage (Pizzandi) Ltd [1963] EA 455
  • Tumushabe v Anglo African Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1999)
  • Tumushabe v M S Anglo African and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 79 of 1999)
  • Lyons v Elliott (1876) 1 QBD 210
  • Assist (U) Ltd v Italian Asphalt and Haulage Ltd and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 1291 of 1999)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Megallies Distillers ( U) Ltd & Anor v Byensi & Anor (HCT-00-CC-MC 9 of 2009) [2013] UGCommC 25 (19 February 2013)
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.