Mukyo v Mawanda & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2008)
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, holding that an execution sale carried out against a deceased judgment debtor whose legal representatives had not been brought on record, and where notice under O.22 r.19 of the Civil Procedure Rules was required (the application being made over a year after the decree) but not given, is null and void. As the sale and execution were void, the appellant's certificate of title founded on them was properly cancelled. The Court found collusion and fraud in the execution and transfer, with knowledge of the judgment debtor's death imputed to the appellant through her husband and advocate. Filing a separate suit to challenge the wrongful execution against the bailiff was proper procedure.
Facts
The respondents, as administrators of the estate of the late Benard Mawanda, sued to set aside the sale and transfer of land (Kyadondo Block 245 Plot 447 at Kiwuliriza) to the appellant. The property had been attached and sold in execution of an ex parte judgment obtained against Mawanda in HCCS No. 954/93. An ex parte judgment was entered on 29/5/1995 and a decree extracted that day. Mawanda died on 12/10/1995. A warrant of attachment issued 14/12/1995 was not executed. The respondents obtained letters of administration on 27/7/1998. A fresh warrant of attachment and sale issued on 15/5/2000, over four years after the decree, was advertised, and the appellant purchased the property on 8/8/2000 and was registered as proprietor. The respondents were never brought on record before execution and received no notice. Evidence showed the appellant, through her husband Allan Williamson and her advocate, knew that Mawanda was dead before the sale.
Issues
- Whether the appellant's title to the suit property could be impeached in the circumstances.
- What remedies were available in the circumstances.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents in this court and the court below.
- Order of the learned trial judge maintained.
Key headnotes
Legislation cited (11)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.19
- Civil Procedure Rules O.19 r.19
- Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.51(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.10
- Civil Procedure Act s.37
- Civil Procedure Act s.34
- Civil Procedure Act s.35
- Registration of Titles Act s.59
- Registration of Titles Act s.176
- Registration of Titles Act s.184
- Judicature Act Cap 13 s.46(2)
Cases cited (13)
- J.W.R. Kazoora vs M.L.S. Rukuuba [1992] KLR III 51 at p.52
- John Katarikawe vs William Katwiremu & anor (1977) HCB 187 at 191
- Kampala Bottlers v Damanico (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
- Okello Okello v Uganda National Examinations Board (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1987)
- Francis Micah v N. Walakira (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1994)
- Paulo Kalule Kagodo VS Kalorina Kyagaza [1979] HCB 136
- Gulu Municipal Council vs Nyeko Gabriel [1997]1 KLR 9
- Attorney General & UCBL vs Westmount Land Asia BHD & 2 Others MA 593 and 595 of 1999
- Agard Didi vs James Namakajo HCCS 1230/1988
- Makula International vs Cardinal Nsubuga [1982] HCB
- Lawrence Muwanga v Stephen Kyeyune (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
- Gopal Chunder vs Gunamoni Dasi [1893] 20 CAL 370
- Raghunath Das vs Sunder Das [1914] 14.1 A.251; 42 Cal 72; 24 I.C. 304