Uganda Case Law

Sawko and Another v Attorney General and Another

Sawko and Another v Attorney General and Another (Civil Suit No. 289 of 2014; Civil Suit No. 410 of 2013) [2017] UGHC 123 (4 May 2017)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit No. 289 of 2014 ; Civil Suit No. 410 of 2013

Judge

Namundi, J

The court found that Civil Suit No. 410 of 2013 was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the issues and parties were substantially the same as those in Miscellaneous Cause No. 78 of 2009, which had already been determined by a competent court. The plaintiffs' claim that they were entitled to first option to purchase the property as sitting tenants was unfounded, as the government policy guidelines only prioritized sitting tenants who were public servants, and the plaintiffs' status as tenants did not confer lawful occupant status under the Land Act. The court also held that continue…

Source excerpt

• Res Judicata
• Allocation Of Government Property
• Lawful Occupant Status
• Tenancy Rights

M/S Allidina Twegaise Traders Association & Anor Vs Jinja Municipal Council & Anor

M/S Allidina Twegaise Traders Association & Anor Vs Jinja Municipal Council & Anor (Civil Suit No. 048 of 2013) [2015] UGHCCD 166 (8 January 2015)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit No. 048 of 2013

Judge

Namundi, J

The High Court struck out a tenants’ suit against Jinja Municipal Council and Birus Property Services Ltd, holding that the plaint disclosed no cause of action and the plaintiffs lacked locus standi.

• Cause Of Action
• Locus Standii
• Representative Suits
• Tenancy Rights
• Title Cancellation
• Cause-of-action

Bazara v Bagnaid and Others

Bazara v Bagnaid and Others (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1955) [1950] EACA 57 (1 January 1950)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1955

Judge

Bacon, JA, De Lestang J, Worley, P

The Court held that the executor, as legal representative under the Succession Ordinance, was competent to grant a lease of the suit premises, and the appellant occupied as a contractual tenant, not as a judgment-debtor. The tenancy was not terminated by notice or lapse of time, and the Rent Restrictions Ordinance, 1947, applied to protect the appellant from eviction. The Supreme Court erred in treating the appellant's position as merged with that of a seller and granting actual possession to the purchaser. The lease, though not registered, was deemed valid for rent restriction purposes under…

Source excerpt

• Tenancy Rights
• Rent Restriction
• Succession And Executorship
• Partition Suits
• Lease Validity
• Eviction Procedure

Absi v Kassim and Another

Absi v Kassim and Another (Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1956) [1950] EACA 382 (1 January 1950)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1956

Judge

Bacon, JA, Briggs, JA, Worley, P

The court held that a tenant’s re-entry right after rebuilding referred to the original site and similar area, but remitted the case to decide if later lettings were lawful.

• Landlord Tenant Disputes
• Specific Performance
• Damages For Breach Of Contract
• Tenancy Rights
• Rent Restriction
• Interpretation Of Contracts

Mootasamy v Ahmed

Mootasamy v Ahmed (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 147) [1947] EACA 84 (1 January 1947)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 7 of 147

Judge

Bourke J

The court held that in the absence of an express covenant prohibiting sub-letting, the tenant retained a common law right to sub-let the premises. Section 11(1)(h) of the Increase of Rent Ordinance, 1940, does not create a statutory prohibition or covenant against sub-letting where none exists in the tenancy agreement. The sub-letting in question was effected while the contractual tenancy was still in force and was therefore lawful. Upon termination of the head tenancy, the tenant lost protection under the Ordinance and could be evicted, but the sub-tenant, having been lawfully sub-let the pr…

Source excerpt

• Tenancy Rights
• Sub Letting
• Statutory Protection Of Tenants
• Termination Of Tenancy
• Rent Control
• Landlord And Tenant Relations

Nathookhan v Chairman, Mombasa Town Planning Authority (C.C. 116/1930 (Msa.).)

Nathookhan v Chairman, Mombasa Town Planning Authority (C.C. 116/1930 (Msa.).) [1930] EACA 84 (1 January 1930)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

C.C. 116/1930 (Msa.).

Judge

Thomas, J. (Kenya)

The court held that a monthly tenant who received six months’ notice to quit was not entitled to compensation under the town planning scheme.

• Compensation For Injurious Affection
• Town Planning Schemes
• Tenancy Rights
• Notice To Quit
• Town-planning-schemes
• Compensation-for-injurious-affection