Wakilii

Twagira v Kitaka & Another (Civil Suit 242 of 2020)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 92 · 2024 Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for compensation arising from alleged breach of contractual duty to provide security
Decision
Suit 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 dismissed a tenant's claim for compensation against her landlord and his security contractor for stolen property. The court held that the written tenancy agreement contained no obligation to provide security and the parol evidence rule barred oral testimony to add such a term. The plaintiff could not sue the security company as she was not privy to the contract between the landlord and that company. The doctrine of privity of contract applied and the plaintiff failed to establish any exception under Contracts Act section 65.

Outcome

Suit dismissed

Facts

In September 2017, the plaintiff entered a tenancy agreement with the first defendant for an apartment at Ethel Courts, Muyenga, renewed in September 2019. The second defendant provided security services at the premises under a contract with the first defendant. On 8 September 2019, the plaintiff's apartment was burgled and property worth UGX 33,480,000 and USD 9,420 was stolen. The plaintiff alleged the rent covered shared security. The first defendant denied any contractual obligation to provide security. The second defendant stated it had no direct contract with the plaintiff. The plaintiff had travelled during the theft and her house helper had left the apartment unattended.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the loss of the Plaintiff's property?
  2. Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in the theft of property?
  3. What are the remedies available?

Orders

  • The suit is hereby dismissed.
  • Basing on the nature and circumstances of this case where there was a Landlord tenant relationship and in a bid to promote reconciliation, I make no orders as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Parol Evidence Rule — Admissibility of Oral Evidence to Vary Written Terms
Once the terms of a contract are reduced to writing, extrinsic oral evidence intended to contradict, vary, alter or add to the express terms of the agreement is generally inadmissible.
Contract Law — Interpretation — Plain Meaning Rule
When a contract is clear and unambiguous, a court will enforce it according to its plain terms without considering extrinsic evidence or interpreting the language beyond the face of the instrument.
Contract Law — Privity of Contract — Third Party Rights
Under the doctrine of privity of contract, a person who is not a party to a contract cannot sue to enforce it or claim rights under it, regardless of whether they were intended to benefit from it, unless an exception under Contracts Act section 65 is established.
Contract Law — Breach — Elements
To succeed in a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must prove the existence of a contract and its essential terms, breach of a duty imposed by the contract, and resultant damages.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (14)

  • Alliance Africa General Insurance Ltd v Trueline Africa Ltd (Civil Suit No. 542 of 2006)
  • Kyarimpa Sarah v Harriet Nassozi Hewet (Civil Suit No. 794 of 2016)
  • Asiimwe Alex v Maracha Sam (High Court Civil Suit No. 102 of 2018)
  • Clessy Barya Kiiza v Jomo Robert Kashaija (Civil Suit No. 894 of 2019)
  • DSS Motors Ltd v Afri Tours and Travels Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 12 of 2013)
  • William Kasozi v DFCU Bank Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 1326 of 2000)
  • Acayo Richard v Saracen (U) Ltd and others (Civil Suit No. 63 of 2021)
  • Chemicals East Africa Limited v KAC Chemicals and Paints (U) Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 470 of 2016)
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 542 of 2006)
  • Taruis vs. Moy, Dacies Smith, Vanderrell & Co. [1936] IKB 399
  • Future Stars Investment (U) Ltd v Nasuru (Civil Suit No. 12 of 2017)
  • Jacob v. Batavia and General Plantations Trust, (1924)1 Ch. 287
  • Juma v Wadri (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 12 of 2017)
  • Among Mary Goretti v Tracks International Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 280 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Twagira v Kitaka & Another (Civil Suit 242 of 2020) [2024] UGHCCD 92 (31 May 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.