Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Jane Nankya Kawesa v William Kabali & Ors (Miscellaneous Cause No. 91 of 2005) (Miscellaneous Cause No. 91 of 2005) [2006] UGHC 62 (21 April 2006)
The High Court refused relief against forfeiture over leased property after it had been re-entered and sold to a third party, dismissing the application with costs.
Erukana v Vasrambhai (Civil Appeal 2 of 2002) [2002] UGSC 48 (18 September 2002)
The Supreme Court held that the appellant lawfully re-entered and terminated the respondent's lease due to clear breaches of covenants, including non-payment of rent and unauthorized subletting. The Court found that the act of letting the property to a new tenant constituted constructive possession and lawful re-entry, which terminated the lease as between the parties, regardless of the Registrar's refusal to note the re-entry. The respondent's counterclaim for relief against forfeiture and possession was, in substance, an action for ejectment against the lessor, which is barred by section 18…
Source excerpt
Joyantilal Popatilal Karia v Rebecca Musoke (Case No. 621 of 1997) (Case No. 621 of 1997) [2002] UGHC 37 (25 February 2002)
The High Court of Uganda partially upheld a preliminary objection, striking out alternative prayers for relief against forfeiture but allowing a declaration claim to proceed.
Jayantilal Popatlal Karia v Rebecca Musoke (Civil Suit 621 of 1997) [2002] UGHC 125 (25 February 2002)
The High Court struck out the plaintiff’s alternative prayers for relief against forfeiture and cancellation of re-entry, but allowed the declaratory claim to proceed.
Kuwe v Damji Vadher (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2000) [2001] UGCA 47 (21 September 2001)
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge properly exercised her discretion in granting relief against forfeiture to the respondent. Although the respondent breached certain covenants of the lease, the court found that the period of non-payment and subletting coincided with the respondent's expulsion and the property's vesting in the Departed Asian Property Custodian Board, circumstances not contemplated by the parties. The court affirmed that section 27 of the Judicature Statute allows relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent, and that equity may be invoked under sections 16(2)…
Source excerpt
Erukana Kuwe v Vashrambhai Damji Vadher (Civil Appeal 42 of 2000) [2001] UGCA 34 (21 September 2001)
The Court of Appeal held that the trial Judge properly exercised her discretion in granting relief against forfeiture to the respondent. Although breaches of the lease were established, the respondent's inability to perform arose from supervening expropriation and repossession circumstances beyond his control. Section 27 of the Judicature Statute provides for relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent, and where statutory law is silent, the High Court may resort to equity under Sections 16(2) and 35 of the Judicature Statute. The appellant's actions, including refusal to accept rent an…
Source excerpt
Mawokota Coffee Works Limited v Kiragga and 5 Others (Civil Suit 425 of 1991) [1992] UGHCLD 1 (12 June 1992)
The High Court held that a coffee factory lease remained subsisting, granted relief against forfeiture for rent default, and ordered rent review and payment of arrears.
Butagira v Namukasa (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1989) [1990] UGSC 26 (18 July 1990)
The Supreme Court held that the absence of consent under Section 22(5)(c) of the Public Lands Act rendered the transfer of the leasehold property voidable, not void ab initio, and only the controlling authority could enforce such breaches. The appellant was found to have breached the covenants of the lease by failing to pay rent and subletting without the lessor's consent. Relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent was not available to the appellant, as the breach was not solely for non-payment and the relevant statutory provisions did not apply where re-entry was effected by an indivi…
Source excerpt
Williamson and Another v Walmsley (Civil Suit No. 522 of 1955.) [1955] EACA 281 (1 January 1955)
The court held that the first plaintiff, as original lessor, had the right to forfeit the lease for non-payment of rent by commencing proceedings and serving summons on the defendant, thereby terminating the tenancy before the transfer of the property. Although the first plaintiff could not obtain an order for possession after disposing of her interest, her right to possession passed to the second plaintiff upon transfer. The transferee, however, could not forfeit the lease for arrears of rent due before transfer, but since the forfeiture and right to possession had already accrued to the fir…
Source excerpt
