[2006] UGHC 62

[2006] UGHC 62

The court found that the applicant's lease had been extinguished by the judgment in Civil Suit No. 99 of 2003 and subsequent re-entry and sale of the property by the first, second, and third respondents to the fourth respondent. The applicant did not appeal the judgment or seek to prevent the transfer of interests....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] UGHC 62
Parties
Applicant: Jane Nankya Kawesa; Respondent: William Kabali; Respondent: F. Ssendawula; Respondent: B. J. Nabalamba; Respondent: Sam Mukasa
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Miscellaneous Cause No. 91 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Relief Against Forfeiture, Lease Termination, Sale of Property, Sublease Rights
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Relief Against Forfeiture Lease Termination Sale of Property Sublease Rights

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jane Nankya Kawesa

Applicant

William Kabali

Respondent

F. Ssendawula

Respondent

B. J. Nabalamba

Respondent

Sam Mukasa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to relief against forfeiture under Section 25(4) of the Judicature Act.
  2. 2 Whether the sale of the suit property to the fourth respondent extinguished the applicant's rights under the sub-lease.
  3. 3 Whether granting relief would cause injustice to third parties who have acquired interests in the property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's lease had been extinguished by the judgment in Civil Suit No. 99 of 2003 and subsequent re-entry and sale of the property by the first, second, and third respondents to the fourth respondent. The applicant did not appeal the judgment or seek to prevent the transfer of interests. The property is no longer owned by the original lessors, and granting relief would adversely affect the rights of the fourth respondent, a bona fide purchaser. The court held that relief against forfeiture is discretionary and should not be granted where it would cause injustice to third parties who have acquired interests in the property. The application was therefore...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.