Wakilii

Tumshabe and Another v Ms Anglo Africn Limited and Another (Civil Appeal 38 of 1997)

Court of Appeal · [1998] UGCA 41 · 1998 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from High Court judgment dismissing a claim for unlawful distress and eviction
Decision
Appeal dismissed; trial court finding that eviction and distress were lawful upheld

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 Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that both the eviction and the distress for rent were lawfully done. Anglo African Ltd derived its authority from a valid power of attorney (Exh D3) operative at the material time, making it the attorney of the landlord entitled to levy distress under section 3 of the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act. Employing a licensed court bailiff's firm (Security Auctioneers) to execute the distress was lawful. The appellants were trespassers unlawfully occupying the premises. The Court also observed that a trial judge should rule on the admissibility of a document when the issue is raised rather than deferring it to judgment.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; trial court finding that eviction and distress were lawful upheld

Facts

The first appellant occupied a flat and ran a business in a shop in premises formerly owned by Asians expelled from Uganda. The premises had been let to the appellants by the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board. Laximidas Dalia repossessed the premises on 28 April 1993 under the Expropriation of Properties Act 1982 and appointed Anglo African Ltd. to manage them under a power of attorney (Exh D3) dated 20 September 1993, valid for one year. The appellants refused to pay rent and challenged Dalia's title. On 1 August 1994 Anglo African Ltd authorised Security Auctioneers, whose employee was the second respondent, to levy distress for unpaid rent and evict the appellants. Vacation notices dated 9 August 1994 were issued and execution was carried out on 17 August 1994. The appellants sued for unlawful distress, alleging inadequate notice, expired power of attorney, and that the second respondent was not authorised to distrain. The High Court found the eviction and distress lawful and dismissed the claim.

Issues

  1. Whether the eviction of the appellants was carried out lawfully.
  2. Whether the respondents lawfully distrained the appellants' property under the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act.
  3. Whether the first respondent had capacity to instruct distress given the power of attorney relied upon.
  4. Whether the trial judge erred in his approach to the admissibility of a document (Exh D1).

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Respondents awarded the costs of the appeal and of the court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Distress for Rent — Persons Authorised to Levy Distress — Attorney of Landlord
Under section 3 of the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act, an attorney of the landlord, appointed to manage the property under a valid power of attorney, is authorised to levy distress for rent without a bailiff's certificate.
Power of Attorney — Implied Revocation — Effect of Later Instrument
An earlier power of attorney is impliedly revoked by a later power of attorney granted after it, and the authority to act derives from the later, operative instrument.
Distress for Rent — Employment of Licensed Court Bailiffs
An authorised manager or attorney of the landlord may lawfully employ a firm of licensed court bailiffs, acting through its employees, to levy distress for rent.
Admissibility of Documents — Timing of Ruling — Deferral to Judgment
A trial judge should rule on the admissibility of a document at the time the objection is raised, rather than deferring the ruling to judgment, so that counsel can properly deal with the document and its evidential value during the trial and in final submissions.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Kampala City Council v Nakaye (1972) EA 445

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tumshabe and Another v Ms Anglo Africn Limited and Another (Civil Appeal 38 of 1997) [1998] UGCA 41 (5 November 1998)
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.