Wakilii

Sunshine Tours And Travel Ltd v Alam Group Of Companies Limited (Cv.Cs. No. 170 Of 1999) (Cv.Cs. No. 170 of 1999)

High Court · [2009] UGHC 154 · 2009 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for damages arising from eviction and distress for rent
Decision
Plaintiff partially successful — awarded monetary damages for unlawful disposal of property, but claim for general damages for loss of business dismissed

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 held that while the landlord was lawfully entitled to lock the tenant's premises for non-payment of rent under the tenancy agreement, the subsequent disposal of the tenant's property through distress violated rules of natural justice. The landlord failed to properly notify the tenant of the public auction, failed to afford the tenant an opportunity to participate in the inventory and valuation process, and failed to comply with procedural requirements under the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act. The distress was therefore a nullity. The plaintiff was awarded the value of the wrongfully sold property minus the arrears of rent owed.

Outcome

Plaintiff partially successful — awarded monetary damages for unlawful disposal of property, but claim for general damages for loss of business dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff, a tenant in Impala House, fell into arrears of rent totaling Shs.10,798,900/= by August 1997. The defendant landlord locked the premises on 26 August 1997 with all the plaintiff's property inside. On 2 October 1997, the defendant instructed bailiffs to evict the plaintiff. The bailiffs obtained a special certificate from the Chief Magistrate's Court on 3 October 1997 and advertised the plaintiff's property for sale by public auction in the New Vision newspaper on 7 October 1997, with the sale scheduled for 14 October 1997. The sale proceeded without notifying the plaintiff directly, without affording the plaintiff an opportunity to be present during the inventory taking or valuation, and without proper identification of the plaintiff or premises in the advertisement. The plaintiff claimed the total value of property locked in the premises was Shs.35,715,000/=, while the defendant valued the property sold at Shs.1,742,000/=. After the sale, the defendant received Shs.1,000,000/= towards the rent arrears.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff owed Shs.5,000,000/= or Shs.10,798,900/= to the defendant as arrears of rent.
  2. Whether the defendant sold all the property locked up in the office.
  3. Whether the locking of the plaintiff's office and the subsequent disposal of its property were unlawful.
  4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies claimed in the plaint.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant.
  • Plaintiff awarded Shs.14,925,000/= being the value of the plaintiff's properties minus arrears of rent.
  • Interest on the award at the rate of 18% per annum from 26 August 1997 until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Landlord and Tenant — Distress for Rent — Prerequisites — Existence of Landlord-Tenant Relationship
The existence of a landlord and tenant relationship is a prerequisite to the exercise of the powers of distress under the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act.
Landlord and Tenant — Distress for Rent — Strict Compliance with Statutory Procedure
Once a landlord or the landlord's attorney opts to distress for rent under the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act, such a one must do so strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder.
Natural Justice — Right to be Heard — Distress Proceedings
In exercising powers of distress, the landlord or authorized bailiff is carrying out a task affecting the rights of an individual and is therefore required to observe the principles of natural justice, including acting fairly and affording the tenant an opportunity to be heard.
Natural Justice — Notice Requirements — Adequacy of Notice
An advertisement for sale of distrained property which does not mention the tenant by name, does not state the premises in respect of which distress is being carried out, and does not disclose the amount of rent due, does not constitute effective and appropriate notification to the tenant of the sale by public auction.
Natural Justice — Nullity — Acts in Contravention
What is done in contravention of the rules of natural justice is a nullity. Where a landlord and bailiffs fail to communicate the intended sale to the tenant, fail to afford the tenant an opportunity to have a representative present when compiling the inventory and during valuation and sale, the distress is carried out unfairly and amounts to a nullity.
Vicarious Liability — Principal and Agent — Bailiffs Acting on Instructions
Where a landlord instructs bailiffs to levy distress on a private individual basis rather than under judicial process, the landlord is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of the bailiffs in carrying out those instructions.
Tenancy — Breach — Remedies — Damages for Wrongful Distress
Where a landlord lawfully closes premises for non-payment of rent but unlawfully disposes of the tenant's property, the tenant is entitled to damages for the unlawful disposal but not for loss of business arising from the lawful closure and eviction, as the tenant committed breach of the tenancy agreement.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act Cap.76 s.2
  • Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Rules r.3(2)
  • Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Rules r.20
  • Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Rules r.21
  • Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Rules r.24

Cases cited (5)

  • Souza Figuerido & Co Ltd v George & Others [1959] EA 756
  • Tumushabe v Anglo-African Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1999)
  • Furnell v Whangarei High Schools Board [1973] AC 660
  • Attorney General v Ryan [1980] AC 718
  • S Figueiredo & Co v Panagopaulos [1959] EA 756

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sunshine Tours And Travel Ltd v Alam Group Of Companies Limited (Cv.Cs. No. 170 Of 1999) (Cv.Cs. No. 170 of 1999) [2009] UGHC 154 (28 August 2009)
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.