Wakilii

Micro-Haem Scientifics & Medical Supplies Limited v Babirye (Miscellaneous Application 625 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 222 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for unconditional leave to appear and defend summary suit for rental arrears, arising from Civil Suit No. 330 of 2024
Decision
Judgment entered for Respondent/Plaintiff for USD 71,667; Applicant/Defendant ordered to vacate premises within 10 days with eviction to follow if non-compliant

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

Application for leave to appear and defend summary suit dismissed. The court held that the applicant tenant failed to establish a triable defence to the landlord's claim for rental arrears. No evidence supported the alleged agreement to offset structural alteration costs against rent, and the tenancy agreement required any rent deduction to be agreed in writing by addendum. The applicant had no right to occupy premises after tenancy expiry without paying rent.

Outcome

Judgment entered for Respondent/Plaintiff for USD 71,667; Applicant/Defendant ordered to vacate premises within 10 days with eviction to follow if non-compliant

Facts

The applicant tenant executed a two-year tenancy agreement with the respondent landlord in May 2019 for commercial premises. The tenant claimed it spent USD 73,407 on structural alterations with the landlord's consent, and that the parties agreed to offset this amount against rent. The tenant alleged it continued paying full rent until May 2021, then elected not to renew but later reversed that decision to use the alteration credit as rent. The landlord denied any meetings, consent to alterations, or agreement to offset. When the tenant defaulted on rent from April 2021, the landlord filed a summary suit for USD 71,667 in rental arrears. The tenant applied for leave to defend, asserting the alleged offset meant it owed nothing.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 330 of 2024?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application for leave to appear and defend dismissed.
  • Respondent/Plaintiff entitled to a sum of USD 71,667 (United States Dollars Seventy-One Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-Seven Only) in Civil Suit No. 330 of 2024.
  • Applicant/Defendant directed to give vacant possession of the suit premises to Respondent/Plaintiff not later than ten (10) days from the date of this Ruling, failing which eviction shall issue.
  • Applicant/Defendant shall take all its chattels/tools of business when vacating the premises.
  • Respondent/Plaintiff awarded the costs of this application and the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Landlord and Tenant — Variation of Written Agreement — Requirement for Written Addendum
Where a tenancy agreement expressly provides that rent shall be paid without deduction unless agreed by both parties in writing as an addendum to the agreement, any alleged agreement to offset expenses against rent must be evidenced by a written addendum and cannot be established by oral evidence or mere assertions.
Contract Law — Parol Evidence Rule — Extrinsic Evidence to Vary Written Contract
Extrinsic evidence cannot be used to vary the terms of a written contract. Where parties have reduced their agreement to writing, evidence of alleged oral modifications that contradict or add to the written terms is inadmissible absent a written amendment signed by both parties.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suit — Leave to Appear and Defend — Establishing Triable Issues
For leave to appear and defend a summary suit to be granted, an applicant must show by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law. A triable issue arises when a material proposition of law or fact is affirmed by one party and denied by the other, capable of resolution through trial. The defence must not be needlessly bald, vague, or sketchy, nor a sham intended to delay recovery.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suit — Purpose and Scope — Expeditious Disposal
Summary procedure under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules is enacted to facilitate expeditious disposal of cases involving debts and contracts of a commercial nature, preventing defendants from presenting frivolous or vexatious defences to unreasonably prolong litigation. It is resorted to in clear and straightforward cases where the demand is liquidated and there are no genuine issues for determination.
Land & Property — Landlord and Tenant — Tenant's Improvements — Landlord's Liability for Tenant Alterations
Where a tenancy agreement places the obligation to repair, maintain, and alter the demised premises solely on the landlord, and there is no evidence that the landlord consented to alterations made by the tenant for the tenant's business purposes, the landlord cannot be deemed liable for the cost of such alterations or required to offset them against rent in the absence of a written agreement.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (15)

  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Total Uganda Limited v Thummin Trading Company [2011] eKLR
  • Corporate Insurance Co. Ltd v Nyali Beach Hotel Ltd [1995-1998] 1 EA 7
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Mukoome Agencies [1982] HCB 225
  • Bunjo Jonathan v KCB Bank of Uganda Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 174 of 2014)
  • Byaruhanga Tumwesigye v Equity Bank (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1052 of 2016)
  • Children of Africa v Sarick Construction Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 134 of 2016)
  • Jamil Ssenyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (High Court Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)
  • Kotecha v Adam Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd v Bombay Garage [1958] EA 741
  • Omega Bank Plc v O.B.C Limited [2005] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1294) 511
  • Post Bank (U) Ltd v Abdul Ssozi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2015)
  • Ndibazza Naima v Acacia Finance Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1144 of 2014)
  • Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation (U) Ltd and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co. Ltd [1981] HCB 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Micro-Haem Scientifics & Medical Supplies Limited v Babirye (Miscellaneous Application 625 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 222 (10 July 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.