Bamu Partners and Auctioneers v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2002)

Supreme Court · [2003] UGSC 59 · 2003 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second appeal to the Supreme Court from a Court of Appeal decision upholding the High Court's reversal of a taxing officer's ruling on a bill of costs

Decision

Appeal dismissed; the High Court and Court of Appeal decisions disallowing the bill of costs item 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 appellant, a court bailiff, claimed fees for attaching shares held by a judgment debtor in a corporation. The respondent opposed the bill of costs on the ground that no attachment had been effected in compliance with Order 19 r.43 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Supreme Court held that attachment of a share in a corporation must be effected by a written prohibitory order served on the proper officer of the corporation and a copy affixed in a conspicuous part of the court house; merely forwarding a warrant of attachment did not satisfy the rule. The onus to prove compliance lay on the appellant, who failed to discharge it. The Court of Appeal's omission to address each ground occasioned no miscarriage of justice. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

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 49% shares the debtor held in UCB. On 1 September 1999 the appellant, a court bailiff, applied to the Deputy Registrar for a warrant of attachment and sale of those shares. The appellant later claimed Shs. 968,184,623 (3% of the decretal sum) as fees for attachment of shares, being item 1 of its bill of costs. The respondent opposed the item, contending that the appellant had effected no attachment because, by the time the appellant received the warrant, the respondent's counsel had already procured a prohibitory order and completed the attachment. The evidence showed the appellant had only forwarded a warrant of attachment to the UCB company secretary, rather than serving a prohibitory order on the proper officer and affixing a copy in a conspicuous part of the court house as Order 19 r.43 required.

Issues

Whether the appellant complied with Order 19 r.43(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules in effecting attachment of the shares.
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 consider and make findings on each of the grounds of appeal raised before it.

Orders

Appeal dismissed.
Costs awarded to the respondent here and in the courts below.
The Registrar of the Court is 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 for limitations on awards to court bailiffs by taxing officers.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Attachment of Shares — Compliance with Order 19 r.43 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Attachment of a share in the capital of a corporation must be effected by a written order prohibiting the registered holder from transferring the share or receiving dividends, a copy of which is served on the proper officer of the corporation and another affixed in a conspicuous part of the court house; merely forwarding a warrant of attachment does not constitute compliance with Order 19 r.43.

Evidence — Burden of Proof — Taxation of Bill of Costs

A party claiming fees for work done bears the onus of proving that it in fact performed the work, including compliance with the mandatory provisions governing that work; it is not for the opposing party to prove that the provisions were not complied with.

Civil Procedure — Appeal — Point of Law Raised by Court on Its Own Motion

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

Civil Procedure — Appeal — Failure to Consider Grounds of Appeal

An appellate court's failure to specifically consider each ground of appeal does not vitiate its decision unless the omission has 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.