Wakilii

William and Another v Walmsley (Civil Suit No. 522 of 1955)

East African Court of Appeal · [1956] EACA 34 · 1956 Judgment for Plaintiff (Relief Against Forfeiture Granted) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of possession based on forfeiture of lease for non-payment of rent
Decision
Defendant granted relief against forfeiture conditional on providing security for costs within 24 hours; if security not provided, possession to be delivered to the second plaintiff with mesne profits

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 held that a landlord who commences forfeiture proceedings and serves the writ on the tenant exercises the option to forfeit and determines the tenancy at the moment of service, even if the landlord subsequently transfers the property before judgment. The transferee acquires the right to possession that arose from the forfeiture and may recover possession, notwithstanding that the transferee cannot sue for arrears of rent accrued before transfer or forfeit the lease independently. Relief against forfeiture was granted on condition of security for costs.

Outcome

Defendant granted relief against forfeiture conditional on providing security for costs within 24 hours; if security not provided, possession to be delivered to the second plaintiff with mesne profits

Facts

The first plaintiff landlord leased premises to the defendant in 1951 for ten years at £250 per month with a forfeiture clause for non-payment of rent for 21 days. A formal lease was executed in May 1955. The defendant was frequently in arrears. On 9 June 1955, the first plaintiff filed suit for possession because April 1955 rent was unpaid. On 21 June 1955, the first plaintiff agreed to sell the premises to the second plaintiff, with the sale completed on 1 September 1955. The second plaintiff was aware of the ejectment proceedings and agreed to join them. The second plaintiff was joined as a plaintiff on 21 February 1956. By the date of hearing, all rent was paid up to date.

Issues

  1. Whether the first plaintiff, having disposed of her interest in the property after commencing the suit, was entitled to an order for possession.
  2. Whether the second plaintiff (transferee) was entitled to forfeit the lease for non-payment of rent that accrued before the transfer.
  3. Whether the service of the writ by the first plaintiff before transfer had the effect of determining the tenancy.
  4. Whether the second plaintiff acquired the right to possession as transferee of the first plaintiff's rights.
  5. Whether the defendant should be granted relief against forfeiture under section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Orders

  • The defendant to provide security within 24 hours to the satisfaction of the Court for payment of the full costs of the suit within 15 days of taxation.
  • On provision of security, the defendant relieved against forfeiture of the lease.
  • If default is made in providing security, possession to be given to the second plaintiff (Turner, Barker and Hatfield Ltd) together with mesne profits to the date of possession.
  • Costs of the suit to be paid by the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Landlord and Tenant — Forfeiture — Exercise of Option to Forfeit — Effect of Service of Writ
When a lessor commences forfeiture proceedings for breach of a covenant to pay rent and serves the writ on the tenant, the lessor thereby exercises the option to forfeit the lease and the tenancy is determined at the moment of service of the summons.
Transfer of Lessor's Interest — Rights of Transferee — Arrears of Rent
Under section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, a transferee of a lessor's interest is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer and consequently cannot forfeit the lease for non-payment of rent accrued before the date of transfer.
Transfer of Lessor's Interest — Right to Possession After Forfeiture
Where a lessor forfeits a lease and thereby becomes entitled to possession before transferring the property, the right to possession passes to the transferee along with the other rights in the property and the transferee is entitled to recover possession.
Parties — Transfer of Interest Pending Suit — Substitution or Joinder
Where a plaintiff transfers the entirety of their interest in property that is the subject of pending litigation, the transferee may be substituted as plaintiff under Order 23, rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules or may be joined as an additional plaintiff, and having disposed of all interest the original plaintiff is not entitled to an order for possession.
Landlord and Tenant — Relief Against Forfeiture — Exercise of Discretion
Relief against forfeiture under section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 is discretionary and may be granted on condition that the tenant provide security for payment of the landlord's costs within a specified time after taxation, notwithstanding that the tenant has been unsatisfactory in payment of rent, where forfeiture would cause considerable hardship and the tenant is able to provide security.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Indian Transfer of Property Act 1882 s.109
  • Indian Transfer of Property Act 1882 s.111(g)
  • Indian Transfer of Property Act 1882 s.112
  • Indian Transfer of Property Act 1882 s.114
  • Civil Procedure Rules 1948 Order 23 rule 9

Cases cited (3)

  • Vishveshwar Viglmeshwar Shadri v Mahableshwar Subba Bhatta (1919) ILR 43 Bom 28
  • Grimwood v Moss (1871-72) LR 7 CP 360
  • Serjeant v Nash, Field & Co (1903) 2 KB 304

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

William and Another v Walmsley (Civil Suit No. 522 of 1955) [1956] EACA 34 (1 January 1956)
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.