Wakilii

Nabawesi v Bachubhali (Civil Suit 2 of 1996)

High Court · [1999] UGHC 26 · 1999 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money spent on repairs to repossessed property
Decision
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; defendant's counterclaim allowed; plaintiff ordered to pay rent arrears with interest and vacate the premises.

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 dismissed the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement of repair costs totalling shs. 5,521,265 on the ground that she failed to strictly prove the special damages claimed and did not comply with the statutory requirements under the Expropriated Properties Act for compensation for improvements. The plaintiff had not demonstrated that the repairs constituted improvements enhancing the utility or quality of the property, nor had the valuation been conducted by the Board of Valuers as required by statute. The court entered judgment for the defendant on the counterclaim, ordering the plaintiff to pay rent arrears and vacate the premises.

Outcome

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; defendant's counterclaim allowed; plaintiff ordered to pay rent arrears with interest and vacate the premises.

Facts

The plaintiff became a tenant of premises at Plot 17B Kumi Road, Mbale, under the Departed Asians' Property Custodian Board in 1876 (likely 1976). In February 1993, an unidentified motor vehicle crashed into the premises, causing extensive damage to two pillars and the canopy. On directives from the Mbale Municipal Council Town Clerk, the plaintiff carried out repairs at a claimed cost of shs. 5,521,265. In July 1994, before reimbursement, the defendant repossessed the premises under the Expropriated Properties Act. The plaintiff demanded reimbursement from the defendant as her new landlord, but he refused. The plaintiff produced a bill of quantities and photocopies of receipts to support her claim. The defendant counterclaimed for rent arrears, alleging the plaintiff owed shs. 1,470,000 from September 1993 to January 1996. The plaintiff admitted being in arrears but disputed the amount.

Issues

  1. Whether an unidentified vehicle collided with the suit premises causing extensive structural damage.
  2. Whether the plaintiff was directed to repair the damages by the urban authority.
  3. Whether the repairs cost shs. 5,521,265.
  4. Whether the defendant promised to pay the cost of repairs.
  5. Whether the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff in law for repairs to repossessed property.
  6. What were the terms of the tenancy between the plaintiff and the Custodian Board.
  7. What were the terms of the tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendant.
  8. Whether the plaintiff is in breach of the terms of the tenancy and if so what are the arrears of rent owing.
  9. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed with costs to the defendant.
  • Judgment entered for the defendant on the counterclaim.
  • Plaintiff to pay to the defendant the sum of shs. 1,470,000 in rent arrears as at 31/1/96.
  • Plaintiff to pay to the defendant rent arrears from 1/2/96 to such time as she shall vacate the suit premises at the rate of shs. 50,000 per month.
  • Plaintiff to pay interest on rent arrears at the rate of 22% from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • Plaintiff to immediately vacate the suit property.
  • Plaintiff to pay the taxed costs of the counterclaim and the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Repossessed Property — Tenant's Right to Compensation for Improvements — Statutory Requirements
A tenant claiming compensation for improvements effected on repossessed property under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 must comply with the statutory requirements of sections 11(2) and 12 of that Act and section 2 of the Properties and Business (Acquisition) Decree 1975, including having the valuation conducted by the Board of Valuers established under the Decree. A valuation by private valuers or contractors does not constitute compliance with the statutory scheme.
Improvements — Distinction from Repairs — Enhancement of Utility and Quality
For works done on property to amount to an improvement entitling a tenant to compensation, the works must enhance the utility or quality of the property. Repairs that merely restore a building to its previous condition, or routine maintenance such as re-plastering and painting that a good tenant should carry out for their own convenience, do not constitute improvements and do not attract a right to compensation.
Special Damages — Proof — Strict Standard
A claim for special damages, including money expended on repairs, must be proved strictly. Where a plaintiff relies on an unsigned and undated bill of quantities whose authorship is unknown, and photocopies of receipts that do not correspond to the works actually carried out as established by oral evidence, the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of strict proof and the claim for special damages must fail.
Expropriated Properties Act — Section 12 — Purpose and Application
While the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 is meliorative in nature, intended to protect the interests of both former owners who lost property through expropriation and persons who made improvements in the intervening years, section 12 of the Act serves as a safeguard against bogus or imaginary claims at the expense of former owners by requiring compliance with the statutory valuation procedure.
Tenancy — Rent Variation — Proof of Agreement
Where a landlord claims that the monthly rent payable under a tenancy was increased from an initial rate to higher rates on subsequent occasions, but produces no evidence of communication of the increase to the tenant and relies only on the testimony of an agent who admits he was not involved in the relevant communications, the landlord has failed to prove the variation on a balance of probabilities and the original rental rate remains the contractual term.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Expropriated Properties Act No. 9 of 1982 s.4
  • Expropriated Properties Act No. 9 of 1982 s.5
  • Expropriated Properties Act No. 9 of 1982 s.11(2)
  • Expropriated Properties Act No. 9 of 1982 s.12
  • Properties and Business (Acquisition) Decree 1975 s.2

Cases cited (8)

  • Bhogal v Barbidge & Anor [1975] EA 186
  • Kagoya v Attorney General [1967] EA 17
  • Consulting Engineering v Micheal Bitatutre (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1994)
  • Shaban Matovu v Sukindar Hussein Esmail & 5 Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 283 of 1992)
  • Shabani Matovu t/a Matovu Brothers & Workers Vs Sikindar Husain Esmail, Sultanali Husain Esmail & 4 ors
  • M.S Patel v Orikot (High Court Civil Suit No. 30 of 1996)
  • Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v DAPCB (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1993)
  • Sarah Kivumbi v Betty S. Matovu [1992-1993] HCB 132

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nabawesi v Bachubhali (Civil Suit 2 of 1996) [1999] UGHC 26 (9 February 1999)
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.