Wakilii

Rajinder Singh v Muwonge (Civil Suit No. 71 of 2008)

High Court · [2015] UGHCLD 210 · 2015 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of lease agreement and damages
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with general damages awarded for breach of covenant for quiet possession. Claim for mesne profits and special damages dismissed.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 2 times 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 defendant failed to establish any breach of lease terms by the plaintiff that would justify the defendant's exercise of a right of re-entry. The defendant breached his covenant to allow the plaintiff quiet possession of the leased property. Fraud was not proven to the required standard. General damages for breach of contract awarded; claim for mesne profits disallowed for lack of proof of actual profits received.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with general damages awarded for breach of covenant for quiet possession. Claim for mesne profits and special damages dismissed.

Facts

The plaintiff held a leasehold interest in land comprised in Kibuga Block 2 plot 99, Bukesa, Kyadondo, originally leased in 1958 for 49 years. The plaintiff's interest was registered in 1970, taken over by the Departed Asian Property Custodian Board in the 1970s, and repossessed by the plaintiff in 1993. In 2003, the defendant obtained an ex parte decree in Civil Suit No. 159 of 2003 and registered himself as proprietor of the land. The plaintiff successfully had this decree set aside via Misc. Application No. 89 of 2004 and was reinstated on the certificate of title in 2005. Despite the reinstatement, the defendant continued to occupy the property. The defendant was deceased at the time of judgment, but his family remained in occupation. The plaintiff sued for breach of the lease agreement, alleging the defendant failed to give vacant possession and wrongfully exercised a right of re-entry. The plaintiff also alleged fraud in the manner the defendant obtained the ex parte decree.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant breached the lease agreement by failing to give vacant possession of the suit premises.
  2. Whether the defendant exercised his right of re-entry onto the suit premises.
  3. Whether the defendant committed fraud.
  4. What remedies, if any, are available to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The plaintiff is awarded general damages for breach of contract in the sum of UGX 30,000,000.
  • Interest awarded at 6% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The plaintiff is awarded two-thirds of the costs of the suit.
  • The defendant is awarded one-third of the costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Landlord and Tenant — Right of Re-entry — Burden of Proof
A lessor who claims a right of re-entry must prove that the lessee breached the terms of the lease agreement that forms the basis of the landlord-tenant relationship. Where the lessor relies on a different lease agreement from that which governs the parties' relationship, the lessor fails to discharge the burden of proving breach.
Breach of Contract — Covenant for Quiet Enjoyment — Landlord's Duty
A lessor who covenants to allow the lessee quiet possession and enjoyment of demised premises without interruption breaches that covenant where, following the setting aside of an ex parte decree and the lessee's reinstatement as registered proprietor, the lessor continues to deprive the lessee of possession.
Burden of Proof — Section 103 Evidence Act
Section 103 of the Evidence Act places the burden of proof of any fact upon the party who wishes the court to believe in its existence. A party asserting breach of a lease agreement must prove the breach to the required standard.
Fraud — Standard of Proof — Higher than Balance of Probabilities
The standard of proof in fraud is higher than the ordinary balance of probabilities. A plaintiff alleging fraud must establish by cogent evidence that the defendant acted knowingly and dishonestly.
Mesne Profits — Definition and Proof Requirements
Mesne profits under section 2(m) of the Civil Procedure Act are the profits which the person in wrongful possession actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received, together with interest on those profits. A claimant must adduce evidence of profits actually received by the wrongful occupant. Where the occupant resided in the property and no evidence is adduced of commercial exploitation or rent received, the claim for mesne profits will fail.
Costs — Apportionment — Partial Success
Costs generally follow the event, but where each party succeeds on some issues and fails on others, the court may apportion costs to reflect the degree of success. A successful litigant has a reasonable expectation of obtaining costs, but courts may depart from the general rule in special circumstances.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (8)

  • Erukana Kuwe v Vasrambhai Damji Vader (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2002)
  • Executrix of the Estate of Late Christine Namatovu Tebajjukira & Another v N. G. Shalita Stananzi (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Andes (EAS) Ltd v Akoong Wat Mulik Systems Ltd & Another (Civil Suit No. 184 of 2008)
  • Onegi Obel v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 66 of 2002)
  • David Sejjaka Nalima v Rebecca Musoke (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1985)
  • Francis Butagira v Deborah Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1989)
  • Uganda Development Bank vs. Muganga Construction Company (1981) HCB 35
  • Sutherland vs. Canada (Attorney General) 2008 BCCA 27

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Rajinder Singh v Muwonge (Civil Suit No. 71 of 2008) [2015] UGHCLD 210 (24 April 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.