Wakilii

Stellah Moments Decorations v Muwanga T/A Kitavuja General Agencies (Civil Appeal 8 of 2019)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 34 · 2024 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court ruling dismissing application for leave to appear and defend and granting certificate to levy distress for rent
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondent

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

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the application for leave to appear and defend was incompetent as it applied summary suit procedure under Order 36 CPR to an application for distress for rent under the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act. The grounds of appeal were struck out or failed: ground 1 was too general and did not specify which evidence was improperly evaluated; ground 2 lacked substance as it concerned an incompetent application; ground 3 failed as the trial court properly applied the law on distress for rent to established facts of landlord-tenant relationship, rent arrears, and a specified amount.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

The Respondent, acting on behalf of Kiriri Cotton Company Limited, filed an application in Chief Magistrate's Court for a certificate to levy distress for rent against the Appellant who had defaulted on rent for 11 months, accumulating arrears of UGX 9,700,000. The Appellant was served with the application and filed a reply. The Appellant also filed a separate Miscellaneous Application No. 787 of 2018 for leave to appear and defend, which the trial Magistrate dismissed. The trial court then granted the certificate to levy distress for rent. The Appellant appealed both the dismissal of the leave application and the granting of the distress certificate. At the appeal hearing, only counsel for the Respondent filed written submissions.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence on record.
  2. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in finding that the Appellant did not raise a reasonable defence.
  3. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in granting a certificate to levy distress for rent.

Orders

  • Ground 1 of appeal struck out for being offensive to Order 43 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • Ground 2 of appeal failed for lack of substance.
  • Ground 3 of appeal failed on merits.
  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent in the High Court and in the trial court.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Grounds of Appeal — Requirement for Specificity
A ground of appeal must concisely specify the points alleged to have been wrongly decided and must not be couched in general terms. A ground stating merely that the trial court failed to evaluate evidence without specifying which evidence or in what manner is too general and offends Order 43 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Leave to Appear and Defend — Applicability
The procedure for leave to appear and defend under Order 36 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies only to summary suits brought on specially endorsed plaints. An application for leave to appear and defend is incompetent and an abuse of process when filed in response to an application under the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act, which is not a summary suit.
Land & Property — Distress for Rent — Conditions for Granting Certificate
Before issuing a certificate for distress for rent, three conditions must be established: existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, that the tenant is in arrears, and that the amount claimed is certain or specified.
Civil Procedure — First Appellate Court — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
The duty of a first appellate court is to scrutinise and re-evaluate the evidence on record and come to its own conclusion. The court must consider the evidence on any issue in its totality and not in isolation, making allowance for the fact that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (5)

  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Baguma Fred v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2004)
  • Attorney General v Florence Baliraine (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2001)
  • Ronchobhai Shivabhai Patel Ltd v Henry Wambuga & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Stellah Moments Decorations v Muwanga T_A Kitavuja General Agencies (Civil Appeal 8 of 2019) [2024] UGHCCD 34 (20 February 2024)
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.