Hajji Kyanda v Kamya (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2002)

Court of Appeal · [2004] UGCA 51 · 2004 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Civil appeal from a High Court ruling in objector proceedings arising out of execution of a decree

Decision

Appeal dismissed on the preliminary objection; the order in the objector proceedings remains conclusive pending any suit to establish the appellant's right

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 upheld the respondent's preliminary objection and held that under Order 19 rule 60 of the Civil Procedure Rules a party against whom an order is made in objector proceedings has no right of appeal. The proper remedy is to institute a suit to establish the right claimed to the disputed property; subject to the result of any such suit, the order is conclusive. As the appellant had not filed such a suit, the order against him remained conclusive. The appeal was dismissed on the preliminary objection alone, with costs in the appeal and the lower court awarded to the respondent.

Facts

The respondent, Deogratius Kamya, had successfully sued one Dirisa Sevume in High Court Civil Suit No. 466 of 1999. In execution of the decree, property comprised in Leasehold Register Volume 2401, Folio 22, Plot 4A at Musajja-Talemwa Road in Mityana Town was attached. The appellant, Hajji Kyanda Shaban, commenced objector proceedings against the respondent (the judgment creditor) in the High Court, claiming rights to the attached property. The trial judge (Okumu-Wengi, J) ruled in favour of the respondent, finding among other things that the appellant was not in possession at the time of attachment and that the lease had expired while the land remained subject to attachment. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, and the parties filed written submissions, in the course of which the respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the appellant's right of appeal.

Issues

Whether an appeal lies as of right against an order made in objector proceedings under Order 19 rule 60 of the Civil Procedure Rules, or whether the aggrieved party must instead institute a suit to establish his claimed right.

Orders

Preliminary objection upheld.
Appeal dismissed on the preliminary objection alone.
Costs of the appeal and of the lower court awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Objector Proceedings — Order 19 rule 60 CPR — Remedy by Suit Not Appeal

Where a party loses a claim in objector proceedings, no appeal lies as of right against the order; the party's remedy under Order 19 rule 60 of the Civil Procedure Rules is to institute a suit to establish the right claimed to the property in dispute, and subject to the result of such suit the order is conclusive.

Civil Procedure — Execution — Attachment — Conclusiveness of Order Dismissing Objection

An order dismissing an objector application and affirming the attachment of property remains conclusive until it is overturned by the result of a suit filed to establish the objector's right to the property.

Legislation cited (2)

Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 r.60
Rules of the Court of Appeal r.97(1)

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.