Wakilii

Nakitende v Mabu Commodities Limited (CIVIL SUIT NO. 117 OF 2016)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 95 · 2020 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 and recovery of seized property, with counterclaim for storage costs
Decision
Judgment for plaintiff with damages awarded and counterclaim dismissed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 an oral tenancy existed between the parties from 2008. The landlord unlawfully terminated the tenancy by locking the tenant's shop and seizing her trading stock on 16 December 2015 when rent was not yet in arrears, as rent only falls into arrears after midnight on the due date. The court found the defendant breached the tenancy agreement by using extrajudicial means to recover possession without a court order. A landlord cannot exercise rights of re-entry or recovery extrajudicially. The plaintiff was entitled to the value of seized property totaling UGX 74,608,800 in special damages plus UGX 50,000,000 in general damages. The counterclaim for storage costs was dismissed as the seizure was wrongful.

Outcome

Judgment for plaintiff with damages awarded and counterclaim dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff entered into an oral tenancy agreement with the defendant in 2008 for shop No. 420 (later L1-20) on Mabirizi Plaza, Kampala, paying rent of UGX 1,000,000 per month (though receipts acknowledged only UGX 500,000) due on the 15th of each month. The plaintiff paid goodwill of UGX 8,000,000 to the previous tenant. On 16 December 2015, while the plaintiff was away, the defendant closed her shop alleging rent default. On 21 January 2016, the defendant permanently closed the shop. On 15 March 2016, in the presence of an LC I chairperson, the defendant removed the plaintiff's merchandise and transferred it to a storeroom. The defendant claimed rent arrears for December 2015-January 2016 and January-February 2016, and filed a counterclaim for storage costs of UGX 9,500,000 at UGX 500,000 per week. Payment receipts showed the parties had practiced flexible payment dates, with payments sometimes made 9-12 days after the nominal due date.

Issues

  1. Whether there was any valid tenancy between the plaintiff and defendant?
  2. Whether the tenancy agreement between the plaintiff and defendant was lawfully terminated?
  3. Whether the tenancy agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was breached and if so by whom?
  4. Whether the defendant was lawfully entitled to take possession of the rented premises?
  5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the return and/or value of the property seized by the defendant and if so how much should be paid to her?
  6. Whether the counter-defendant/plaintiff is indebted to the counterclaimant in the sum of 9,500,000 Uganda Shillings?
  7. What remedies are the parties entitled to?

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff.
  • Special damages of UGX 74,608,800 awarded to the plaintiff being the value of property wrongfully seized by the defendant.
  • General damages of UGX 50,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Interest on special damages at 15% per annum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • Interest on general damages at 10% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Counterclaim dismissed.
  • Costs of the suit and counterclaim awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Tenancy — Oral Tenancy Agreements — Proof of Existence by Possession and Payment
A valid tenancy agreement can exist without a written contract where there is evidence of actual possession of premises and regular payment of rent, constituting an unwritten tenancy by conduct.
Land & Property — Landlord and Tenant — Rent Arrears — Definition and Timing
Rent is due in the morning of the day appointed for payment but is not in arrears until after midnight of that day. A tenant cannot be treated as in default and subjected to remedies for non-payment on the due date itself before the expiry of that day.
Land & Property — Landlord and Tenant — Implied Terms from Conduct — Oral Agreements
In the absence of a written tenancy agreement, the terms of the tenancy and circumstances constituting breach must be inferred from the parties' conduct and the manner in which the oral contract was being performed. Strict enforcement of terms not evidenced by consistent practice is not permissible.
Land & Property — Landlord and Tenant — Recovery of Possession — Requirement for Court Order
Unless a tenant consents or agrees to give up possession, a landlord must obtain an order of a competent court to obtain an order for vacant possession. A landlord cannot exercise rights of re-entry or recovery of rent extrajudicially through self-help measures.
Land & Property — Landlord and Tenant — Distress for Rent — Proper Procedure
A landlord seeking to recover rent through distress must follow the procedure under the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act. Seizure of a tenant's property without following statutory procedure is illegal and amounts to wrongful deprivation of property.
Evidence — Special Damages — Proof Without Documentary Evidence
Special damages need not be proved by documentary evidence such as receipts. For as long as there is sufficient proof of the loss actually sustained which is either a direct consequence of the defendant's action or such consequence as a reasonable person would have contemplated, and the damages are particularized, this suffices. The plaintiff's list of items if admitted and not impeached in cross-examination is adequate proof.
Contract Law — Illegality — Enforcement of Illegal Contracts — Public Policy
No court ought to enforce an illegal contract where the illegality is brought to its notice and if the person invoking the aid of court is himself implicated in the illegality. A tenancy arrangement involving possible revenue fraud through dual receipt systems is unenforceable as contrary to public policy.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (11)

  • Kenya Shell Ltd v Vic Preston Ltd (HCCC No. 3948 of 1999)
  • Chukwuma F. Obidegwu v Daniel B. Ssemakadde (HCCS No. 59 of 1992)
  • Aspinall v Aspinall [1961] Ch 526
  • Peter Mburu Echaria and another v Priscilla Njeri Echaria (Civil Application No. 149 of 1997)
  • Wildlife Lodges t/a Landmark Hotel v Jacaranda Hotel Ltd (HCCC No. 521 of 1999)
  • Gusii Mwalimu Investment Co. Ltd & Other v Mwalimu Hotel Kisii Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 160 of 1995)
  • Byekwaso v Mohammed [1973] HCB 20
  • Nankabirwa Irene v UMEME Ltd (HCCS No. 310 of 2016)
  • Ouma v Nairobi City Council [1976] KLR 298
  • Kakubhai Mohanlal v Warid Telecom Uganda (HCCS No. 224 of 2011)
  • Heptulla v Noormohamed [1984] KLR 580

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakitende v Mabu Commodities Limited (CIVIL SUIT NO. 117 OF 2016) [2020] UGHCCD 95 (15 May 2020)
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.