Wakilii

Oriweld Ltd & Ors V Didas Kataihwaho t/a M/s Key Agencies & Auctioneers & Anor (Civil Suit No. 699 of 1995) (Civil Suit No. 699 of 1995)

High Court · [2002] UGHC 55 · 2002 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for special damages, general damages, and interest arising from alleged unlawful eviction from commercial premises
Decision
Suit dismissed with costs to the defendants

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) 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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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

Held that the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proving unlawful eviction from commercial premises under sections 100-102 of the Evidence Act. The plaintiff's sole witness, an absentee director, lacked direct knowledge of the circumstances of departure and could not establish breach of the tenancy agreement. The defendants lawfully re-entered the premises after the plaintiff vacated. Suit dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Suit dismissed with costs to the defendants

Facts

The 1st plaintiff rented commercial premises at Plot 3/5 Bombo Road in mid-1990s, managed by the 1st defendant on behalf of the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff paid shs. 11,000,000 as goodwill to the sitting tenant, paid 3 months' rent, and spent shs. 11,000,000 on repairs. The plaintiffs alleged the defendants evicted them from the premises before repairs were completed and sought shs. 32,391,500 in special damages plus interest and general damages. The defendants denied evicting the plaintiff, contending that the plaintiff renovated without authority in breach of the tenancy agreement and later abandoned the premises. The plaintiff's witness, an absentee director, was outside the country when the events occurred and could not specify when the alleged eviction happened or whether rent was outstanding.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants breached the tenancy agreement in question?
  2. Whether the defendants lawfully re-entered the suit premises?

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' suit dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Burden of Proof — Onus on Party Alleging Facts
He who alleges the existence of certain facts must prove them in order to succeed in his claim, as provided by sections 100, 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act.
Contract Law — Breach of Tenancy Agreement — Plaintiff's Burden to Prove Unlawful Eviction
Where a plaintiff alleges unlawful eviction from rented premises in breach of a tenancy agreement, the onus lies squarely upon the plaintiff to prove on a balance of probabilities that the eviction occurred and was unlawful.
Evidence — Quality of Evidence — Weight of Witness Testimony Lacking Direct Knowledge
The evidence of a witness who lacks direct knowledge of material events because he was absent when they occurred and cannot establish key facts such as the timing of alleged eviction or the status of rent obligations carries insufficient weight to discharge the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities.

Legislation cited (3)

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.

Oriweld Ltd & Ors V Didas Kataihwaho t_a M_s Key Agencies & Auctioneers & Anor (Civil Suit No. 699 of 1995) (Civil Suit No. 699 of 1995) [2002] UGHC 55 (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.