Wakilii

Okumu Okori & Anor v Tumwesigye & Anor (HCT- OO-CIVIL SUIT 301 of 2009)

High Court · [2015] UGCOMMC 186 · 2015 Judgment for Plaintiffs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract and compensation for improvements made under management agreement
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiffs for refund of renovation costs; counterclaim 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

Held that upon rescission of a management contract, plaintiffs were entitled to refund of money spent on renovations only, valued at UGX 19,500,000. New structures built without proper approval in a green belt could not be compensated as the court cannot sanction illegalities. Defendants were not entitled to rent arrears for the period after rescission as all obligations under the contract terminated upon rescission. Defendants failed to prove their counterclaim for furniture taken.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiffs for refund of renovation costs; counterclaim dismissed

Facts

The plaintiffs entered into a management agreement with the defendants on 27 April 2008 to operate Bright Star Nursery Day and Boarding Primary School at a monthly fee of UGX 1,500,000 for five years. The plaintiffs paid UGX 9,000,000 and took possession, then undertook renovations and constructed new buildings. They discovered the school had never been incorporated as represented, had no valid licence, and received closure notices from Entebbe Municipal Council and the Directorate of Education Standards. The plaintiffs also received a letter from the registered land proprietor ordering them to stop activities. Facing these issues and alleged misrepresentations, the plaintiffs terminated the agreement by letter dated 14 April 2009 and sought compensation for improvements made. The defendants counterclaimed for rent arrears and furniture allegedly taken by the plaintiffs. A joint valuation report valued renovations at UGX 19,500,000 and new construction at UGX 40,000,000.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the value of the improvements claimed and if so how much?
  2. Whether the defendants were entitled to the arrears of rent, if so how much?
  3. Whether the plaintiffs owe the defendants any balance for the properties taken, if so how much?

Orders

  • The plaintiffs are entitled to UGX 19,500,000 being refund of money spent on renovations.
  • Interest on the above at 20% per annum from date of filing the suit till payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Rescission — Effect on Obligations — Termination of Primary Obligations
Where a wronged party elects to rescind a contract following breach by the other party, all primary obligations of the parties under the contract are terminated from the date of rescission, including any obligation to pay rent or consideration for the period after rescission.
Contract Law — Breach — Damages — Entitlement After Rescission
A party who rescinds a contract is only entitled to claim damages for obligations that accrued prior to the rescission but were not performed; they cannot claim for obligations arising after the date of rescission.
Property Law — Improvements — Compensation — Illegal Construction
A court cannot sanction illegalities by ordering compensation for improvements made without proper approval or in contravention of building regulations, even where a contract provides for compensation for improvements.
Evidence — Special Damages — Pleading and Proof — Burden of Proof
It is a cardinal principle that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. A party claiming loss of furniture or property must provide particular details of the items and their respective values; the court cannot engage in a fishing expedition to determine amounts owed.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga & Another (1982) HCB II
  • Buckland v Farmer & Moody (1978) 3 All ER 929
  • Sihra Singh Santokh v Faulu Uganda Ltd (Civil Suit No. 517 of 2004)
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v Tanzanite Corporation (SCCA No. 17 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Okumu Okori & Anor v Tumwesigye & Anor (HCT- OO-CIVIL SUIT 301 of 2009) [2015] UGCommC 186 (30 September 2015)
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.