Contractual clauses

Sharif Osman v Haji Haruna Mulangwa ((Civil Appeal No.38 Of 1995)) [1996] UGSC 15 (30 October 1996);


Search Summary: 

This was an appeal against the decree of the High Court where the appellant was ordered to perform his part of the contract by surrendering vacant possession of his to the respondent.


The grounds of appeal were that, the trail judge erred in law and fact in holding that the parties intended that the respondent would be entitled to vacant possession irrespective of whether he had or had not paid the full purchase money.

Headnote and Holding: 

It was found that the parties had expressly stated in their contract the time at which delivery of possession was to take effect. Thus, the respondent was entitled to vacant possession.


Further, it was argued, whether time was of essence of the contract. It was found that time was vital, and that the appellant had not treated time of essence, but instead the appellant secretly attempted to resell the suit premises within which the last installment was to be made.


Therefore, the appellant could not withhold the deposit after he had purported to rescind the contract. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to vacant possession.

Subscribe to RSS - Contractual clauses