Wakilii

Ndagano v Miiro and Ors (Civil Suit No. 960 of 2017)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 35 · 2022 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for unlawful eviction, confiscation of business property, and commercial loss, heard ex parte after defendants failed to appear
Decision
Judgment entered against the defendants jointly and severally; plaintiff awarded damages and costs; defendants ordered to reopen plaintiff's business 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 held that the defendants' eviction of the plaintiff and confiscation of her business stock and tools was unjustified and illegal where the plaintiff had paid all rent dues. The defendants' actions occasioned commercial loss. The court awarded damages totalling UGX 35,000,000 for confiscated stock, lost income, and loss of business reputation, with interest at 10% per annum, and ordered the defendants to reopen the plaintiff's business premises.

Outcome

Judgment entered against the defendants jointly and severally; plaintiff awarded damages and costs; defendants ordered to reopen plaintiff's business premises

Facts

The plaintiff, a businesswoman dealing in cotton waste, pillows and cotton, entered an agreement on 31 August 2016 with Geospatial Professionals Limited and Miiro Julian to pay UGX 1,200,000 as ground rent for her business premises. The plaintiff paid all sums agreed. On 18 February 2017, she received an eviction notice claiming she owed UGX 1,200,000 in ground rent arrears. The defendants locked up her workshop with all operational stock, machinery, materials and cash, and also locked her restaurant with personal belongings. The plaintiff had in fact paid all rent dues as evidenced by receipts. The defendants failed to appear at the hearing on 7 April 2021, and the case proceeded ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants are justified in continuing to lock up the plaintiff's business premises and confiscation of the plaintiff's business stock and business tools.
  2. Whether the actions of the defendants occasioned the plaintiff commercial loss.
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought.

Orders

  • Declaration that the continued confiscation of the plaintiff's business by the defendants is unfair and unlawful.
  • The defendants forthwith reopen the plaintiff's business premises.
  • The defendants pay UGX 20,000,000 to the plaintiff, being the market value of all the plaintiff's business tools and business stock which was unlawfully confiscated.
  • The defendants pay UGX 10,000,000 being lost business income from the date of the cause of action.
  • The defendants pay UGX 5,000,000 to the plaintiff being compensation for the plaintiff's permanent loss of business and loss of reputation.
  • The sums awarded in orders 3, 4 and 5 shall each attract an interest of 10% per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • The defendants jointly and severally pay the costs of this suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Landlord and Tenant — Unlawful Eviction — Eviction Without Justification Where Rent Paid
Where a tenant has paid all rent dues as agreed, a landlord's eviction of the tenant and confiscation of the tenant's business property on grounds of alleged rent arrears is unjustified and illegal.
Tort Law — Wrongful Eviction — Commercial Loss — Causation
Forceful eviction, closure of business premises, and confiscation of goods constitute wrongful acts that occasion commercial loss to a business owner, including loss of clientele to competitors.
Damages & Quantum — Assessment — Burden of Proof — Duty to Adduce Evidence
It is the duty of the party making a claim for damages to adduce evidence to guide the court on the quantum of damages to be awarded under each head of claim, including justification of the figures claimed by reference to specific evidence of loss.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Rate — Commercial Transactions
Where a defendant has taken and used a plaintiff's money in a commercial transaction, an interest rate higher than the court rate of 6% is appropriate to compensate the plaintiff; the rate is within the court's discretion and must reflect the commercial nature of the transaction.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (7)

  • S & A Consultants Limited v Crane Management Services Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 352 of 2013)
  • Kibimba Rice Limited v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Harbutt's Plasticine Ltd v Wyne Tank & Pump Co. Ltd [1970] 1 Ch 447
  • Premchandra Shenoi and Another v Maximov Oleg Petrovich (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2003)
  • SIETCO Vs NOBLE BUILDERS (U) Ltd (supra)
  • National Pharmacy Ltd (supra)
  • Jenniffer Rwanyindo Aurelia and Another v School Outfitters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1999)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ndagano v Miiro and Ors (Civil Suit No. 960 of 2017) [2022] UGCommC 35 (7 April 2022)
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.