Makubuya v Buliamu Muwanga Kibrige t a Kowloon Garment Industry and Another (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2015)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 75 · 2022 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

First appeal from a High Court ruling dismissing an application challenging execution by attachment and sale of property

Decision

Appeal partly allowed; warrant schedule found defective but order reversing sale declined as futile; majority declined compensation while concurring judge declared appellant's right to bring an action for compensation

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 partly allowed the appeal, holding that the schedule to the warrant of attachment was defective and ambiguous because the word 'ETC' did not provide a reasonably accurate description of property as required by Order 22 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, leading to attachment of unlisted property. However, the bailiff could not be faulted for executing the warrant as drawn, and the appellant's valuation evidence of undervaluation was rejected. The objection filed three months after the sale was delayed under Order 22 Rule 55. The majority declined consequential compensation for lack of proof, while Madrama JA added a declaration of the appellant's right to compensation. Each party bore its own costs.

Facts

The first respondent sued the appellant in High Court Civil Suit No. 37 of 2013 and obtained a default judgment with a decretal sum of UGX 112,000,000. The first respondent applied for execution, and the second respondent, a court bailiff, was to execute the decree. The appellant's plant machinery at Ntinda, known as Polla Plast, was attached, dismantled and sold by public auction. The warrant of attachment listed plastic manufacturing machines and equipment but ended the schedule with the word 'ETC'. The appellant contended that this left the warrant open, resulting in attachment and dismantling of his entire factory beyond the listed items, and that the property was grossly undervalued. The appellant relied on a valuation report by Meys Consult prepared for Polaplast Limited a year earlier, while the respondents relied on a Systems Engineers valuation done after attachment. The appellant's challenge to the execution was filed three months after the sale and was dismissed by the High Court.

Issues

Whether the schedule to the warrant of attachment, which used the word 'ETC', provided a reasonably accurate description of property as required under Order 22 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Whether the court bailiff acted ultra vires the powers conferred by the warrant of execution.
Whether the property attached in execution was grossly undervalued.
Whether the appellant's objection to the attachment and sale was delayed and barred by law.
Whether the appellant is entitled to a remedy where the attachment was found to be based on a defective warrant.

Orders

Appeal succeeds in part.
The schedule to the warrant of attachment was not properly drawn and was defective.
The finding that the items attached were not undervalued is upheld.
Per Madrama JA (concurring): The appellant is entitled to compensation for any of his properties wrongly attached.
Per Madrama JA (concurring): The appellant is entitled to bring an action to prove the particulars of such property and their value for purposes of compensation.
Each party to bear its own costs.

Key headnotes

Execution — Warrant of Attachment — Description of Property under Order 22 Rule 9

A warrant of attachment must contain a reasonably accurate description of the property to be attached; the use of the word 'ETC' at the end of a property list does not amount to an accurate description and renders the schedule ambiguous and defective, leading to attachment of property not listed.

Execution — Court Bailiff — Liability for Executing Warrant as Drawn

A court bailiff cannot be faulted for executing a warrant of attachment according to its terms, even where the warrant schedule is ambiguously drafted, as the bailiff acts within the powers conferred by the warrant.

Execution — Objection to Attachment — Delay under Order 22 Rule 55

Although no specific limitation period is prescribed, an objection to attachment and sale of property should be brought before the actual sale is concluded; an objection filed long after the sale may be treated as designedly delayed, barring investigation and reasonably inferred to be an afterthought.

Execution Sales — Title of Purchaser — Section 50 Civil Procedure Act

Under section 50 of the Civil Procedure Act, no suit is maintainable against a purchaser of property sold under a decree of execution on the ground that the property was sold irregularly, and a purchaser at a public auction acquires good title where the objector failed to prevent the sale.

Declaratory Judgments — Right to Compensation under Order 2 Rule 9

A court may make binding declarations of right whether or not consequential relief is or could be claimed; a party who partially succeeds may be granted a declaration of a right to compensation and to bring a separate action to prove the particulars and value of the loss.

Legislation cited (5)

Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.9
Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.55
Civil Procedure Rules O.2 r.9
Civil Procedure Act s.50
Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 30(1)(a)

Cases cited (7)

Bogere Moses v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
Darlington Sakwa and Another v Electoral Commission and 44 Others (Constitutional Petition No. 8 of 2006)
Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
Goodlock v Cousins [1894] 1 QB 558
Ellis v Duke of Bedford [1899] 1 Ch 494
Guaranty Trust Company of New York v Hannay and Company Limited [1915] 2 KB 536

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.