Wakilii

Nalubega v DL Properties Ltd and Lubega (Civil Suit 294 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 426 · 2023 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for conversion, trover and detinue of goods
Decision
Plaintiff's suit dismissed

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

A landlord who removes goods from premises after a tenant defaults on rent for six months and abandons the property does not commit conversion or detinue where the landlord stores the goods and makes them available to the tenant, but the tenant refuses to collect them. The plaintiff's claim failed because she was in rent arrears at the time of removal, had abandoned the premises, and refused to take her goods from police storage after they were recovered.

Outcome

Plaintiff's suit dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff was a tenant of the defendants at Farmers Centre Container Village, store FC06. During the COVID-19 lockdown from March to September 2020, the plaintiff did not pay rent and the store remained locked. On 8 September 2020, the defendants' agents opened the store in the presence of local council officials, removed and stored the plaintiff's goods, and allocated the store to another tenant. The plaintiff's son complained, and the plaintiff paid rent arrears on 9 September 2020 after the goods had been removed. The plaintiff reported theft to police. The defendants brought the removed goods to police. The plaintiff refused to collect the goods from police, claiming they were incomplete, and instead sued for conversion of goods worth UGX 271,400,000. The defendants contended the plaintiff was in rent arrears for six months and had abandoned the premises, justifying the removal.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants are liable for conversion of the plaintiff's goods?
  2. What are the remedies available?

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claims of conversion, trover and detinue dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Detinue — Elements of the Tort — Demand and Refusal
The essence of detinue is that the defendant holds property belonging to the plaintiff and fails to deliver it when a demand is made. The goods must be in the custody of the defendant at the time the demand is made. A claim for detinue fails if at the time the plaintiff made a demand the goods were not in the defendant's actual possession.
Landlord and Tenant — Tenancy at Will Created by Default in Payment of Rent
Default in payment of rent converts a periodic tenancy into a tenancy at will. From the moment rent becomes due and payable but remains unpaid, the original tenancy comes to an end by effluxion of time and the tenant becomes a tenant at will by continuing in possession. A tenant at will holds over the property and the landlord can terminate the tenancy at any time.
Landlord and Tenant — Landlord's Right to Re-enter Premises Abandoned by Defaulting Tenant
A landlord whose premises have been permanently locked by an absconding tenant who has not paid rent for an unreasonable time is at liberty to break into the premises and mitigate the continued loss. A defaulting or absconding tenant who acts unreasonably by locking premises without paying rent should not be assisted by court in claims of detinue, trover or conversion which may be frivolous and vexatious.
Conversion — Intention to Assert Superior Possessory Interest
An act of conversion must comprise conduct which affects the claimant's possessory interests and is accompanied by the intention to assert an interest inconsistent with and superior to that of the claimant. Mere taking or removal of a chattel will not on its own constitute conversion unless it is proved the taker had the intention to assert a possessory title superior to that of the claimant.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Quality Over Quantity of Witnesses
In establishing the standard of proof required in a civil trial, it is not the quantity of witnesses that a party calls to testify that is important, but the quality of the witness called. A party who bears the burden of proof must produce evidence of facts in issue that has the quality of credibility, and the evidence must be consistent with the probabilities that surround the currently existing conditions.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (5)

  • Drake Lubega v Lubega Roberts and 5 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2019)
  • Enterprise Bank Ltd v Aroso (2004) 3 NWLR (pt 1394) 257 (SC)
  • Odutola v Papersack (Nig) Ltd [2006] 18 NWLR (pt 1012) 470
  • Tumushabe and Another v Anglo-African Ltd and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1999)
  • Tat Seng Machine Movers Pte Ltd v Orix Leasing Singapore Ltd [2009] 4 SLR (R) 1101

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nalubega v DL Properties Ltd and Lubega (Civil Suit 294 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 426 (15 December 2023)
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.