Bamu Partners & Auctioneers v Attorney General (CIWL APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2000)

Court of Appeal · [2001] UGCA 40 · 2001 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second appeal from High Court decision setting aside a Taxing Master's order on a court bailiff's bill of costs

Decision

Appeal dismissed; High Court decision setting aside the taxation order upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that whether an appeal was filed within the stipulated time is an issue of fact that must be raised at the first opportunity; the appellant could not raise it for the first time on second appeal, particularly as statutory exclusions of time under section 80(2) CPA and Order 47 rule 3 might have applied. On the merits, attachment of shares under Order 19 rule 43 is complete only when both the prohibitory order is affixed on a conspicuous part of the court house and served on the corporation. The bailiff bore the burden of proving he had complied; having failed to prove affixing, he was not entitled to payment on the disputed item of his bill of costs.

Facts

The Attorney General and Uganda Commercial Bank obtained judgment against Westmont Land (Asia) BHD for over UGX 32 billion. The respondent applied for a warrant of attachment and sale of Westmont's 49% shareholding in Uganda Commercial Bank. The Deputy Registrar granted execution by prohibitory order under Order 19 rule 43, which was issued to the Attorney General on 7 September 1999. On 10 September 1999 the Deputy Registrar issued a warrant of attachment and sale to the appellant court bailiff in respect of the same decree. On 27 September 1999 the appellant submitted a bill of costs claiming approximately UGX 968 million as fees for attaching the shares. The respondent objected, contending the bailiff did nothing because attachment had already been completed by the respondent. The Deputy Registrar taxed in favour of the bailiff, but the Principal Judge on appeal held neither party had completed attachment as required by Order 19 rule 43, since affixing the prohibitory order on a conspicuous part of the court house was not proved.

Issues

Whether the appeal entertained by the Principal Judge was illegal or a nullity for being filed out of time.
Whether the Principal Judge erred in holding that no valid attachment proceedings were accomplished by the appellant bailiff under Order 19 rule 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

Appeal dismissed.
Costs of the appeal to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Time Limitation — New Point Raised on Second Appeal

Whether an appeal was filed within the stipulated time is an issue of fact that must be raised at the first appellate opportunity; it cannot be raised for the first time on a subsequent appeal.

Computation of Time — Exclusions Under Section 80(2) CPA and Order 47 rule 3

Any prescribed time limit for filing an appeal against a Registrar's order is subject to the exclusion of time taken by the court in preparing copies under section 80(2) of the Civil Procedure Act and to the extension where offices are closed under Order 47 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Execution — Attachment of Shares — Requirements of Order 19 rule 43

Attachment of shares in a corporation is complete only when both steps under Order 19 rule 43(2) are taken, namely affixing the prohibitory order on a conspicuous part of the court house and serving a copy on the proper officer of the corporation.

Burden of Proof — Party Claiming Payment for Work Done

A party claiming payment for executing an attachment bears the burden of proving that he complied with the mandatory requirements of the relevant rules; it is not for the opposing party to prove non-compliance.

Legislation cited (8)

Civil Procedure Act s.80
Civil Procedure Act s.80(2)
Civil Procedure Rules Order 47 rule 3
Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 rule 43(1)
Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 rule 43(2)
Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 rule 8
Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 rule 27
Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 rule 64

Cases cited (2)

Christine Bitaraheho v Dr. Edward Kakonge (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1999)
North Staffordshire Railway Co v Edge [1920] AC 254

Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.