Select Garments Limited v Old Stanley Hotel Limited (Civil Suit 674 of 2014)
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 the Defendant by conduct waived its right to claim the original rent of USD 7,656 per month when it accepted a reduced flat rate of USD 4,000 per month from January 2013 to May 2014 and issued receipts showing nil balance. The Defendant breached the Tenancy Agreement by wrongfully evicting the Plaintiff despite multiple court orders restraining eviction, and by confiscating the Plaintiff's property. The Plaintiff fully paid the agreed reduced rent and was not indebted. Court awarded the Plaintiff special damages for fittings and fixtures, general damages, exemplary damages, and costs. The counterclaim for rent arrears failed.
Outcome
Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff with declarations, damages, interest and costs; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed
Facts
The Plaintiff leased premises in Forest Mall, Lugogo from the Defendant at USD 22 per square meter (USD 7,656 monthly) for six years from December 2010. By October 2012 the Plaintiff was in rental arrears and the Defendant obtained a default judgment in Civil Suit No. 451 of 2012. The parties entered a Consent Agreement wherein the Plaintiff paid USD 50,000 in settlement of all arrears up to 31 December 2012. From January 2013, the Plaintiff paid a reduced flat rate of USD 4,000 per month which the Defendant accepted and issued receipts showing nil balance. On 26 May 2014, the Defendant served an eviction notice claiming rent arrears of USD 293,070. The Plaintiff instituted the present suit and obtained interim orders restraining eviction. Despite these court orders, the Defendant evicted the Plaintiff, locked the premises, and confiscated the Plaintiff's property. The Defendant counterclaimed for USD 172,894 in rental arrears, contending the rent was never revised and that the Plaintiff only made part payments.
Issues
- Whether either the Plaintiff or the Defendant breached the Tenancy Agreement between 2013 and 2014?
- Whether the Defendant revised the Plaintiff's monthly rent from USD 7,656 to USD 4,000?
- Whether the Plaintiff is indebted to the Defendant in the sum of USD 172,894 in rent arrears for the period from 2013 to 2014?
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- It is declared that the Plaintiff is not indebted to the Defendant in rental arrears as claimed or at all.
- It is declared that the Defendant breached the Lease (Tenancy) Agreement.
- The Plaintiff is awarded special damages of USD 131,257 comprised of USD 123,601 for fittings and fixtures and USD 7,656 being the security deposit refund and UGX 99,320,856 comprised of UGX 52,800,000 for accommodation and locally procured materials and UGX 46,520,856 for stock that was confiscated.
- The Plaintiff is awarded exemplary/punitive/aggravated damages of UGX 30,000,000.
- The Plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 70,000,000.
- Interest is awarded on special damages at 20% per annum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
- Interest is awarded on general damages and exemplary/punitive/aggravated damages at 6% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
- Costs of the suit are awarded to the Plaintiff.
- The Counterclaim fails.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (23)
- Contracts Act 2010 s.9(1)
- Contracts Act 2010 s.9(2)
- Contracts Act 2010 s.51
- Contracts Act 2010 s.52
- Contracts Act 2010 s.60(1)
- Contracts Act 2010 s.66
- Contracts Act Cap. 284 s.9(1)
- Contracts Act Cap. 284 s.9(2)
- Contracts Act Cap. 284 s.51
- Contracts Act Cap. 284 s.66
- Evidence Act Cap. 6 s.91
- Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.79
- Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.91
- Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.92
- Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.92(d)
- Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.101(1)
- Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.102
- Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.103
- Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.104
- Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.114
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 6 rule 28
- Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.26(2)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.27
Cases cited (38)
- Arch. Joel Katerega and Another v Uganda Post Ltd T/A Posta Uganda (High Court Civil Suit No. 20 of 2010)
- Agri-Industrial Management Agency Ltd v Kayonza Growers Tea Factory Ltd and Igara Growers Tea Factory Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 819 of 2004)
- Kammins Ballrooms Co. Ltd Vs Zenith Investments (Torquay) Ltd [1970] 2 All E.R. 871
- Makubuya Enock Willy T/a Pollaplast v Songdoh Films (U) Ltd and Another (Civil Suit No. 349 of 2017)
- D.S.S Motors Limited v Afri Tours and Travels Limited and Amin Tejani (High Court Civil Suit No. 12 of 2003)
- L'Estrange Vs F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 K.B 394
- Mujuni Ruhemba v Skanka Jensen (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2000)
- Andrew Akol Jacha v Noah Doka Onzivula (High Court Civil Appeal No. 0001 of 2014)
- Yonasani B. Kanyomozi v Motor Mart (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1995)
- Uganda Telecom Ltd v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
- William Kasozi v DFCU Bank Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 1326 of 2000)
- Omega Bank Plc Vs O.B.C Limited (2005) 8 NWLR (pt.928) 547
- Fina Bank Ltd Vs Spares and Industries Ltd [2000] 1 EA 52
- Sharif Osman v Haji Haruna Mulangwa (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1995)
- Greenboat Entertainment Ltd v City Council of Kampala (High Court Civil Suit No. 580 of 2003)
- George Mwa Larum v Zaituna Kawuma (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1991)
- Ben Kavuya and 2 Others v Wakanyira David George (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2021)
- Peekay Intermark Ltd and Harish Pawani Vs Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 386
- Colchester Borough Council Vs Smith [1991] Ch. 448, affirmed on appeal [1992] Ch. 421
- Meridiana Africa Airlines (U) Ltd v Avmax Spares (EA) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 111 of 2017)
- Nakawa Trading Co. Ltd v Coffee Marketing Board (Civil Suit No. 137 of 1991)
- Laura Kinalwa v Compuscan CRB Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 237 of 2020)
- Chuck Vs Cremer (1846) 1 Coop temp Cott 338, 47 ER 884
- Mugabi John v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 133 of 2002)
- W.M. Kyambadde Vs Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44
- Gapco (U) Ltd v A.S Transporters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2004)
- Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
- Luzinda Marion Babirye v Ssekamatte (Alias Mulwana Samuel) and Others (Civil Suit No. 366 of 2017)
- Obongo Orude & Another Vs Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] 1 EA 91
- O'Connor Vs Hewiston [1979] Crim. LR 46, CA
- Archer Brown [1985] QB 401
- Kabandize John Baptist and 21 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2016)
- Takiya Kashwahiri and Another v Kajungu Denis (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
- Wallersteiner Vs Moir [1975] 1 All ER 849
- Waiglobe (U) Ltd v Sai Beverages Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 16 of 2017)
- Surgipharm Uganda Ltd v Anatoli Batabane (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2020)
- Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 224 of 2011)
- Uganda Development Bank Vs Muganga Construction Co. Ltd [1981] HCB 35
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.