Nabaweesi Brenda v Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited (Civil Suit No. 665 of 2022)
Observed later treatment
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 a tenant breaches a tenancy agreement when it fails to yield up the premises in good repair and condition at termination, as covenanted. Where the tenant removes fixtures and fittings causing damage to the premises, the tenant must make good all damage occasioned to the landlord's satisfaction. The court awarded special damages for repair costs actually incurred, excluding costs for pre-tenancy works, the unoccupied second floor, and external works which were the landlord's responsibility under the tenancy agreement. The court also awarded general damages for lost rental income during the period when the premises remained untenantable due to the tenant's breach.
Outcome
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages for breach of tenancy agreement
Facts
The plaintiff landlord entered into a series of tenancy agreements with the defendant bank, the last being dated 4 May 2017 for the second floor and additional space at UGX 12,000,000 monthly rent. The plaintiff renovated the second floor to meet the defendant's standards before handover. The defendant issued notice to terminate on 25 April 2018 effective 31 October 2018. Upon vacating, the defendant removed its fixtures and fittings, causing severe damage to walls, sockets, floors, and ceilings. A police forensic investigation confirmed extensive damage. The parties undertook joint cost analysis, agreeing on repair costs of UGX 72,800,000. The defendant sought permission to undertake repairs but the plaintiff declined, insisting on payment. The defendant sent the keys by courier on 22 January 2019 without repairing the premises. The plaintiff subsequently repaired the premises herself at a cost of UGX 72,800,000 and sued for special damages, lost rental income, and general damages.
Issues
- Whether the defendant breached the terms of the tenancy agreement during termination
- What remedies are available to the parties
Orders
- The defendant breached the tenancy agreement.
- The plaintiff is awarded UGX 49,730,000 in special damages.
- Interest of 18% per annum is awarded on the special damages from the date of filing the suit till payment in full.
- The plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 60,000,000.
- Interest of 8% per annum is awarded on the general damages from the date of judgment till payment in full.
- The plaintiff is awarded costs of the suit.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (6)
- Yoswa Kityo v Eriya Kaddu [1982] HCB 58
- Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (HCCS No. 542 of 2006)
- United Building Services Ltd v Yafesi Muzira T/A Quickest Builders and Co. [2006] UGCommC 15
- Margaret Kato and Another v Nuulu Nalwoga (SCCA No. 3 of 2013)
- Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
- Megha Industries Uganda Limited v Bbrood Uganda Limited (Civil Suit No. 1026 of 2020)
Cases citing this judgment (1)
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.