Bamu Partners and Auctioneers v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 3 of 2002)

Supreme Court · [2003] UGSC 1 · 2003 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second appeal to the Supreme Court from a Court of Appeal decision arising out of taxation of a court bailiff's bill of costs for attachment of shares

Decision

Appeal dismissed; the decision of the Court of Appeal upholding the Principal Judge's reversal of the taxing officer was confirmed

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 Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that attachment of shares in a corporation must be effected by a written prohibitory order served on the proper officer of the corporation with a copy affixed in a conspicuous part of the court house, as required by Order 19 r 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The appellant court bailiff had not taken out and served the prohibitory order, so it had not effected attachment in compliance with the law. The onus lay on the appellant, who claimed fees for the work, to prove that it had carried out the attachment, and it failed to do so. The Court of Appeal's failure to address each ground did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.

Facts

In HCCS No. 476 of 1999 the Attorney General and Uganda Commercial Bank (UCB) obtained judgment against Westmont Land (Asia) BHD for Shs 32,272,821,041, representing the value of Westmont's 49% shareholding in UCB. On 1 September 1999 the appellant, a court bailiff, applied for and obtained a warrant of attachment and sale of those shares. The appellant notified the UCB company secretary by letter forwarding the warrant of attachment, but did not take out or serve a prohibitory order, nor affix a copy in a conspicuous part of the court house, as required for attachment of shares. The respondent contended that any attachment had in fact already been effected by its own counsel before the appellant came on the scene. The appellant nonetheless presented a bill of costs claiming Shs 968,184,623 (3% of the decretal sum) as fees for attachment of the shares, which the respondent opposed.

Issues

Whether the appellant complied with the mandatory requirements for attachment of shares under Order 19 r 43(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Whether the burden lay on the appellant to prove that it had carried out the attachment for which fees were claimed.
Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to specifically consider and make findings on certain grounds of the memorandum of appeal.

Orders

Appeal dismissed.
Costs awarded to the respondent here and in the courts below.
The Registrar of the Supreme Court directed to send a copy of the judgment to the Chief Justice with a suggestion that Statutory Instrument No. 64 of 1987 (as amended by Statutory Instrument No. 15 of 1991) be amended to provide limits on awards to court bailiffs by taxing officers.

Key headnotes

Execution — Attachment of Shares — Order 19 r 43 Civil Procedure Rules — Mandatory Requirements

Attachment of a share in the capital of a corporation is effected only by a written order prohibiting the registered holder from transferring the share or receiving dividends, a copy of which must be sent to the proper officer of the corporation and another affixed on a conspicuous part of the court house; mere forwarding of a warrant of attachment does not satisfy these mandatory requirements.

Burden of Proof — Bailiff's Claim for Fees on Attachment

A court bailiff who claims fees for work done in attaching property bears the onus of proving that he in fact carried out the attachment in compliance with the law; it is not for the opposing party to prove non-compliance.

Appeals — Point of Law Raised by the Court of its Own Motion

An appellate court may, on its own motion, consider a point of law that was not argued by counsel.

Appeals — Failure to Consider Each Ground of Appeal

An appellate court's failure to specifically consider and make findings on each ground of appeal does not vitiate its decision unless it is shown that the omission occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

Legislation cited (3)

Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 r 43(1)(2)
Rules of the Supreme Court r 81
Statutory Instrument No. 64 of 1987 (as amended by Statutory Instrument No. 15 of 1991)

Cases cited (1)

Adonia Makudi v Christ Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1986)

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.