Wakilii

Nakityo Miliam & 4 oers v Jackson Muleele & 7 oers (HCT-00-CV-CS-0052-2008) (HCT-00-CV-CS-0052-2008)

High Court · [2009] UGHC 128 · 2009 Judgment for Plaintiffs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of lease agreement and loss of income. Judgment in default of defence after defendants failed to file defence despite substituted service.
Decision
Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants to pay UGX 89,250,000 jointly and severally plus taxed costs.

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. 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

Where administrators of a leasehold estate wrongfully repossess premises before expiry of the lease term, they are liable for lost rental income for the entire remaining period of the lease. Court awarded lost income calculated at the rental rate from date of wrongful eviction to lease expiry date.

Outcome

Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants to pay UGX 89,250,000 jointly and severally plus taxed costs.

Facts

The plaintiffs' father executed a 49-year lease agreement with the defendants' father in respect of Plot 147 at Najjanankumbi, commencing 17 August 1959 and expiring 17 August 2008. Following the death of both parties' fathers, the plaintiffs and defendants became administrators of their respective estates. The plaintiffs continued honouring the lease terms and had leased the premises to a tenant, Sam Wamala, who paid UGX 1,500,000 monthly rent. In August 2003, approximately five years before lease expiry, the defendants wrongfully re-entered and repossessed the premises, causing the eviction of the plaintiffs' tenant. The defendants were served by substituted service through newspaper publication but failed to file a defence. Interlocutory judgment was entered against them by the Registrar on 6 May 2008.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants breached the lease agreement by re-entering the suit premises before expiry of the lease term.
  2. What quantum of lost income should be awarded to the plaintiffs for the period of wrongful repossession.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiffs against the defendants jointly and severally in the sum of UGX 89,250,000.
  • The plaintiffs shall have the taxed costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Effect of Failure to File Defence — Constructive Admission
Failure by a defendant to file a defence raises a presumption of constructive admission of the claim made in the plaint, and in the absence of a defence to contradict it, the plaintiff's story must be accepted as true.
Contract Law — Leases — Breach of Lease Agreement — Wrongful Repossession by Lessor
Where a lessor wrongfully repossesses leased premises before expiry of the lease term, the lessor is liable to the lessee for breach of the lease agreement.
Damages & Quantum — Assessment of Lost Income — Lease Breach — Calculation Period
Lost rental income arising from wrongful repossession of leased premises is calculated from the date of wrongful eviction to the date of lease expiry at the established rental rate, multiplied by the number of months remaining in the lease term.

Cases cited (2)

  • Agadi Didi v James Namakajjo (Civil Suit No. 1230 of 1988)
  • Tindimwebwa Narisi v Mutebi Salim (Civil Appeal No. HCT-00-CV-CA-0057-2007)

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

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakityo Miliam & 4 oers v Jackson Muleele & 7 oers (HCT-00-CV-CS-0052-2008) (HCT-00-CV-CS-0052-2008) [2009] UGHC 128 (30 September 2009)
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.