Wakilii

Rwambuya v Strabag East Africa Ltd (HCT-05-CV-CS-0111-2000)

High Court · [2005] UGHC 108 · 2005 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract arising from early termination of tenancy agreement
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages, interest, and costs awarded

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 held that a tenant who inspected premises before signing a tenancy agreement and saw a grave in the compound could not later justify early termination on that ground. The doctrine of frustration did not apply where the alleged frustrating event was known to both parties at contract formation. The tenant's notice of termination constituted a repudiatory breach. The landlord was entitled to damages for rent lost during the unexpired term, calculated at twelve months' rent at the agreed rate.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages, interest, and costs awarded

Facts

On 1 April 1997 the plaintiff and defendant executed a two-year tenancy agreement for premises at Plot 19 Kakika Road, Mbarara at UGX 400,000 per month payable half-yearly. Prior to signing, the defendant inspected the premises and saw a grave in the compound. The agreement was executed with full knowledge that no telephone facility existed at the premises. On 1 August 1997 the defendant wrote terminating the agreement, citing the presence of the grave and absence of telephone service as reasons, and vacated in September 1997. The plaintiff rejected the termination. After the defendant vacated, the premises remained without a tenant for twelve months.

Issues

  1. Whether the presence of graves in the compound justified the defendant's vacation of the premises.
  2. Whether the presence of the graves created a condition subsequent.
  3. Whether the tenancy agreement was at an end at the time of the notice by the defendant.
  4. Whether the existence of the grave amounted to frustration of the contract.
  5. What remedies are available to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Suit allowed.
  • Defendant to pay special damages of UGX 4,800,000.
  • Interest on damages awarded at 20% per annum from the date the suit was filed until realization in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Interest on costs at 20% per annum from the date of taxation until realization in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Frustration — Knowledge of Alleged Frustrating Event at Formation
The doctrine of frustration does not apply where the event alleged to frustrate performance was known to both parties at the time the contract was formed and performance remains possible though merely more difficult or inconvenient.
Contract Law — Repudiatory Breach — Unilateral Termination Without Lawful Justification
Where a party terminates a contract based on circumstances known and accepted at formation, such termination constitutes a repudiatory breach entitling the innocent party to treat the contract as discharged and claim damages.
Damages & Quantum — Breach of Contract — Measure of Loss — Reasonable Contemplation
In an action for breach of contract a plaintiff is entitled to recover only such part of the loss as could reasonably be contemplated by the parties at the time of the contract. Where both parties were privy to the rent payable and the plaintiff's entitlement to income during the agreement term, the plaintiff may recover as damages the rent lost for the period the premises remained unlet during the unexpired term.
Land & Property — Tenancy Agreements — Early Termination — Grounds
A tenant who has inspected premises and accepted them as suitable for the intended use, including with knowledge of any physical features such as graves on the property, cannot subsequently rely on those features as justification for early termination of the tenancy.

Cases cited (5)

  • Twentsche Overseas Trading Co Ltd v Uganda Sugar Factory Ltd (EACA No. 12 of 1949)
  • Hochster vs De la Tour (1853) 2 E & B 678 118 E.R. 922
  • Khatijabai Jiwa Hasham vs Zenab d/o Chandu Nansi [1960] EA. 7
  • Woodruff vs Dupont [1964] EA 404
  • Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd vs Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 2KB 528

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rwambuya v Strabag East Africa Ltd (HCT-05-CV-CS-0111-2000) [2005] UGHC 108 (3 February 2005)
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.