Wakilii

Oriweld Limited & Others v Didas Kataihwaho T/A Key Agencies and Auctioneers & Anor (Civil Suit 699 of 1998)

High Court · [2002] UGHCCD 32 · 2002 Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for damages arising from alleged unlawful eviction
Decision
Suit dismissed with costs to defendants

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

Court dismissed claim for damages arising from alleged unlawful eviction. Plaintiffs failed to discharge burden of proving defendants evicted them from rented premises. Absentee director's testimony lacked firsthand knowledge of eviction circumstances and timing. Defendants lawfully re-entered premises after plaintiff vacated. Evidence insufficient to establish breach of tenancy agreement by defendants on balance of probabilities.

Outcome

Suit dismissed with costs to defendants

Facts

The 1st plaintiff rented commercial premises at Plot 3/5 Bombo Road managed by the 1st defendant on behalf of the 2nd defendant. The 1st plaintiff paid shs. 11m as goodwill to the sitting tenant, paid three months rent, and spent shs. 11m on renovations. The plaintiffs alleged the defendants unlawfully evicted them in mid-1995 while rent was paid up. The defendants contended the plaintiff renovated without authority in breach of the tenancy agreement and later vanished from the premises without being evicted. The plaintiff's sole witness was an absentee director who was outside the country when the alleged eviction occurred and lacked firsthand knowledge of the circumstances.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants breached the tenancy agreement in question?
  2. Whether the defendants lawfully re-entered the suit premises?
  3. What are the available remedies?

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Burden of Proof — Party Alleging Facts Must Prove Them
The party who alleges the existence of certain facts bears the burden of proving those facts in order to succeed in the claim.
Evidence — Quality of Evidence — Absentee Witness Without Direct Knowledge
Where a party's sole witness is an absentee director who was outside the country when the material events occurred and lacks direct knowledge of the circumstances, timing, or details of those events, that party fails to discharge the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities.
Contract Law — Breach of Tenancy Agreement — Failure to Prove Unlawful Eviction
A tenant claiming breach of tenancy agreement through unlawful eviction must prove the eviction occurred, was carried out by the landlord, and was unlawful. Failure to prove these elements means failure to establish breach of the tenancy agreement.

Legislation cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Oriweld Limited & Others v Didas Kataihwaho T_A Key Agencies and Auctioneers & Anor (Civil Suit 699 of 1998) [2002] UGHCCD 32 (13 September 2002)
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.