High Court Holds That Where a Tenancy Expires and the Tenant Holds Over, the Tenant Must Continue Paying the Same Rent and Complying With the Original Terms Absent a New Agreement or Lawful Notice of

Waboga David
Feb 2
8 min read

Facts

The plaintiff, a private limited liability company operating as an asset and fleet management enterprise in Uganda, entered into a tenancy agreement dated April 9, 2019, with the defendant, who operated a bar and restaurant business under "Panamera Bar and Restaurant" at Plot 20-30 Sadler Way, Naguru.

Under this agreement, the plaintiff leased part of the premises as a parking yard for displaying imported motor vehicles for a grand yard sale scheduled for April 12-13, 2019, at a rate of UGX 2,500,000 per day for the sale days, and thereafter UGX 3,700 per vehicle per day until sold. The defendant was responsible for providing security and other services for the vehicles.

Subsequently, on various dates, the plaintiff sold five vehicles to the defendant:

February 26, 2020: Toyota Hilux Pick-up (Reg. No. UAS 496 T) for UGX 25,000,000 (deposit UGX 20,000,000, balance UGX 5,000,000 discounted as parking fees; 3% monthly interest on delays).
June 15, 2020: Land Cruiser Station Wagon (Reg. No. UAV 455 P) for UGX 80,000,000 (payable in unspecified installments).
December 12, 2020: Nissan Hard Body Pick-up (Reg. No. UAY 842 D) for UGX 45,000,000 (deposit UGX 20,000,000 less UGX 5,000,000 discounted as parking fees; balance in four equal monthly installments; 3% monthly interest on delays).
Unspecified date: Toyota Land Cruiser Station Wagon (Reg. No. UAZ 468 E) valued at UGX 125,000,000.
Unspecified date: Volkswagen Amarok Pick-up (Reg. No. UAW 554 F) valued at UGX 65,000,000.

The defendant took possession of all five vehicles but defaulted on payments totaling UGX 260,000,000. The plaintiff claimed the defendant owed this amount. The defendant denied the debt, counterclaiming that the plaintiff owed him UGX 284,310,000 in accumulated parking fees for 130 vehicles over 150 days (from September 14, 2019, to August 2020) at UGX 3,700 per vehicle per day. He disputed the purchase prices for the last two vehicles, asserting UGX 60,000,000 for UAZ 468 E (with UGX 10,000,000 paid) and UGX 40,000,000 for UAW 554 F. The plaintiff removed its vehicles from the premises by July 18, 2020, and alleged the defendant's records were falsified.

Additional facts include the plaintiff conducting three yard sales (April 2019, November 2019, and one unspecified) and parking five earth-moving equipment items (three wheel loaders and two excavators) for 93 days at UGX 20,000 per day.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

Whether the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff as claimed.
Whether the plaintiff was indebted to the defendant as claimed.
What remedies were available to the parties.

SUBMISSIONS

Plaintiff's Submissions

The defendant took possession of all five vehicles and the outstanding amounts are liquidated debts.

The defendant cannot rely on a debt owed to his corporation to offset a personal debt.

The defendant has no locus standi to assert a claim on behalf of 'Panamera Bar and Restaurant' as it was never joined as a party.

The defendant's parking records are falsified and unreliable.

Defendant's Submissions

The defendant acknowledges purchasing the five vehicles but disputes the agreed purchase prices for two vehicles (the Amarok and one Land Cruiser).

The Amarok was sold at Shs. 40,000,000/= (not Shs. 65,000,000/=) and the Toyota Land Cruiser UAZ 468 E at Shs. 60,000,000/= (not Shs. 125,000,000/=).

The plaintiff's evidence that all vehicles were removed by 6th July 2019 is falsified and unreliable.

The plaintiff concealed its own sales records and terminated the tenancy stealthily without notice.

After offsetting, there is a balance of Shs. 134,310,000/= in favour of the defendant.

There is no proof that 'Panamera Bar and Restaurant' is a body corporate.

LEGAL REPRESENTATION

For the Plaintiff: M/s Kentaro Mugerwa and Co. Advocates

For the Defendant: M/s Waymo Advocates

Judge: Hon. Stephen Mubiru, J.

COURT'S FINDINGS

1. Liquidated Claims - Burden of Proof

The Court emphasized that liquidated claims must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved:

"A claim is a liquidated amount in money when it is based on an obligation to pay an amount agreed upon, or the amount of money is ascertainable by a mere matter of calculation. The amount must be either previously agreed upon by the parties or capable of being determined by a simple, precise formula. This being a claim for liquidated sum, the law is that not only must it be specifically pleaded but it must also be strictly proved."

2. Quasi-Contracts and Unjust Enrichment

Where no formal written agreement existed for two of the vehicles, the Court applied the doctrine of quasi-contract:

"A quasi-contract is triggered when one party confers a benefit upon another party under circumstances that would make it unjust for the recipient to retain the benefit without paying for it, i.e. where a party has received a benefit, money, or property at the expense of another, and it is unfair to keep it, or where one party provides services or goods, expecting payment, and the recipient knowingly accepts the benefit... By the defendant taking the two vehicles after expression of an interest to buy them and the plaintiff acquiescing in the defendant thereafter taking and retaining possession, a quasi-contract arose."

The Court further explained how the price is determined in quasi-contractual situations:

"Because a quasi-contract is a legal fiction created by courts to prevent unjust enrichment (where one party benefits at another's expense without a formal contract), the 'price' is typically established through equitable principles and by the reasonable market value of the goods or services provided. When a quasi-contract is found, the court typically awards the plaintiff the 'reasonable value' of the services or goods provided."

3. Witness Credibility - Contradictory Testimony

The Court found the defendant's testimony unreliable due to direct contradictions between examination-in-chief and cross-examination:

"A direct contradiction between the examination-in-chief and cross-examination on a material fact usually results in the witness being considered unreliable. By the defendant in his examination in chief denying having purchased the two vehicles, and yet under cross-examination admitting that he did, he significantly undermined his credibility. In the absence of evidence to suggest that it was due to memory lapse or external pressure, it is suggestive instead of intentional deceit."

4. Spoliation of Evidence

The Court applied the doctrine of spoliation against the plaintiff for withholding crucial parking records:

"The rule of spoliation of evidence permits courts to impose sanctions, such as adverse inference, monetary fines, or dismissal, against the party responsible for the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destruction of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding. An adverse inference is a legal sanction where the Court presumes that the destroyed or missing evidence would have been unfavourable to the party responsible for its loss, withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destruction."

The Court found it more probable that the plaintiff had custody of the parking records:

"I am inclined to believe and it appears more probable that custody of the record is attributable to the plaintiff. This is in light of the fact that the defendant was taken by surprise when the plaintiff removed their vehicles during the night with no prior notice to him of their intention to do so. The plaintiff had enough time to take the record with them."

5. Set-off and Mutual Debts

The Court explained the mechanism of set-off:

"A set-off is a mechanism that permits a party to deduct amounts from sums that would otherwise be due because of a countervailing debt or claim, known as a counterclaim... To be available as a procedural defence, both the claim and the counterclaim must ordinarily be 'due and payable,' liquidated or ascertainable without valuation or estimation, owed between the same persons."

6. Uncontroverted Evidence

The Court accepted the plaintiff's valuation report as it was neither discredited nor contradicted:

"Evidence that is neither discredited by cross-examination nor contradicted by opposing evidence is considered uncontroverted or unchallenged, generally requiring the Court to accept it, except where it is mere assertion or bare ipse dixit (a dogmatic expression of opinion), or where it is profoundly flawed, inherently unbelievable or unreliable... This evidence was neither discredited in cross-examination and nor did the defendant adduce a valuation of his own in rebuttal thereof."

HOLDING

Issue 1: Defendant's Indebtedness to Plaintiff

The Court found that the defendant owed the plaintiff Shs. 255,000,000/= for the five vehicles, calculated as follows:

Toyota Hilux (UAS 496 T): Shs. 20,000,000/= - Fully paid
Land Cruiser (UAV 455 P): Shs. 80,000,000/= - Unpaid
Nissan Hard Body (UAY 842 D): Shs. 40,000,000/= - Shs. 20,000,000/= outstanding
Toyota Land Cruiser (UAZ 468 E): Shs. 125,000,000/= (reduced to Shs. 100,000,000/=) - Shs. 90,000,000/= outstanding
Volkswagen Amarok (UAW 554 F): Shs. 65,000,000/= - Unpaid

Issue 2: Plaintiff's Indebtedness to Defendant

The Court found that the plaintiff owed the defendant Shs. 114,113,000/= in parking fees after deducting proven payments of Shs. 59,112,000/= from the total claim of Shs. 173,225,000/=.

Issue 3: Remedies

After setting off the defendant's claim against the plaintiff's claim, the Court entered judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of Shs. 140,887,000/= (Shs. 255,000,000/= less Shs. 114,113,000/=), with:

Interest at 20% per annum from 14th October, 2020 until payment in full
Costs of the suit to the plaintiff

KEY TAKEAWAYS

1. Liquidated Claims Must Be Strictly Proved

When claiming a liquidated sum, parties must not only plead it specifically but also provide strict proof. The amount must either be previously agreed upon by the parties or capable of being determined by a simple, precise formula. This involves outlining the contractual basis and demonstrating a fixed, quantified figure.

2. Quasi-Contracts Prevent Unjust Enrichment

Courts will imply a contract (quasi-contract) to prevent unjust enrichment where one party receives and retains a benefit at another's expense without a formal agreement. The remedy is based on the reasonable market value of goods or services provided. Section 58 of the Contracts Act provides for compensation where a person lawfully delivers something to another and that person enjoys the benefit without payment.

3. Witness Credibility Destroyed by Material Contradictions

A witness who provides contradictory testimony between examination-in-chief and cross-examination on material facts will be deemed unreliable. Such contradictions, absent evidence of memory lapse or external pressure, suggest intentional deceit and significantly undermine credibility. Courts will prefer evidence from more reliable witnesses.

4. Spoliation of Evidence Attracts Adverse Inference

The intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destruction of relevant evidence attracts sanctions including adverse inferences. Courts will presume that destroyed or withheld evidence would have been unfavorable to the party responsible. This doctrine restores evidentiary balance and prevents parties from benefiting from misconduct.

5. Set-off Requires Mutual, Liquidated Debts

For a set-off to work as a defense, both the claim and counterclaim must ordinarily be due and payable, liquidated or ascertainable without valuation, and owed between the same persons. If obligations arise from the same contract, a party may set off even against obligations not yet ascertained. Set-off avoids the need for separate performances by mutual deduction.

6. Uncontroverted Evidence Generally Accepted

Evidence that is neither discredited by cross-examination nor contradicted by opposing evidence is generally accepted by courts, unless it is mere assertion, bare opinion, profoundly flawed, inherently unbelievable, or unreliable. Parties should actively challenge evidence they dispute; failure to adduce rebuttal evidence may result in acceptance of the opponent's proof.

7. Burden Shifts After Prima Facie Case Established

Once a creditor adduces credible evidence establishing a debt, the evidential burden shifts to the debtor to show payment in full or in part. A mere denial is insufficient; the debtor must provide specific evidence such as receipts, bank transfers, or other proof of payment.

8. Continuing Tenancy Maintains Original Terms

When a tenancy agreement expires and the tenant continues to occupy premises ('holds over'), the tenant is ordinarily required to continue paying the same rent and abiding by the same terms unless a new agreement is reached or the landlord legally notifies the tenant of changes. Absent such notice, original terms apply.

9. Interest Awards Compensate for Deprivation of Funds

Courts may award interest on principal sums from the date of filing suit to the date of decree and further interest until payment in full. Interest rates are set at levels deemed reasonable to adequately compensate plaintiffs for being deprived of the use of money during litigation. In this case, 20% per annum was awarded given the prolonged duration of the litigation.

_______________________________________________

This legal alert is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

For specific legal guidance, please consult with qualified legal counsel.

Read the full case below