Bamu Partners & Auctioneers v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 33 of 2000) [2001] UGCA 33 (5 January 2001)
[2001] UGCA 33
Bamu Partners & Auctioneers v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 33 of 2000)
Court of Appeal
· [2001] UGCA 33
· 2001
Appeal Dismissed
AI-generated summary
↓ Download
Pin to watchlist
Add to matter
Observed later treatment
Cited — treatment unverified
cited in 3 (treatment unverified)
Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
No adverse treatment recorded
Cited 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits.
Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.
Judicial journey
Appeal & case history
Follow this matter from the decision below through each appellate court.
Affirmed
The decision below was upheld.
See the court’s words
“In the result, I would dismiss this appeal.”
Affirmed
The decision below was upheld.
See the court’s words
“In the result, I would dismiss this appeal.”
Supreme Court decision located in the Wakilii corpus. Linked from court records and operative language in the judgments.
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. It held that whether an appeal was filed within the stipulated time is a question of fact that must be raised at the first opportunity; having not raised it before the first appellate court, the appellant could not raise it on second appeal. On the merits, attachment of shares under Order 19 rule 43 requires both affixing the prohibitory order on a conspicuous part of the court house and serving the corporation. The bailiff bore the burden of proving compliance to claim his fees, and failed to do so, so he was not entitled to payment on the disputed item of the bill of costs.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; the High Court's setting aside of the taxation stands and the bailiff is not entitled to payment on the disputed item
Facts
In HCCS No. 476 of 1999 the Attorney General and Uganda Commercial Bank obtained judgment against Westmont Land (Asia) BHD for Shs.32,272,821,041. On 1 September 1999 the respondent applied for a warrant of attachment and sale of Westmont's 49% shares in UCB. A prohibitory order under Order 19 rule 43 was granted and issued to the Attorney General on 7 September 1999. On 10 September 1999 the Deputy Registrar issued a warrant of attachment and sale to the appellant, a court bailiff. On 27 September 1999 the appellant submitted a bill of costs claiming Shs.968,184,623.23 as fees for attachment of the shares. The respondent objected, contending the bailiff neither attached nor sold the shares because attachment had already been completed. The Deputy Registrar ruled for the appellant; on appeal the Principal Judge held that neither party had effected a valid attachment as required by rule 43 and set aside the taxation, leading to this appeal.
Issues
- Whether the appeal entertained by the Principal Judge was illegal or a nullity for having been filed out of time.
- Whether the Principal Judge erred in holding that no valid attachment of shares was accomplished under Order 19 rule 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Appeals — Time Limits — Whether a point on limitation may be raised for the first time on second appeal
Whether an appeal was filed within the stipulated time is a question of fact that must be raised at the first opportunity; if not raised before the first appellate court, it cannot be raised on a subsequent appeal.
Execution — Attachment of Shares — Requirements under Order 19 rule 43
Attachment of a share in a corporation under Order 19 rule 43 is complete only where both mandatory steps are taken: affixing the prohibitory order on a conspicuous part of the court house and serving a copy on the proper officer of the corporation.
Bills of Costs — Court Bailiff's Fees — Burden of Proof of Work Done
A court bailiff claiming fees for attachment bears the burden of proving that he in fact complied with the mandatory requirements for attachment; it is not the objecting party's duty to prove non-compliance.
Appeals — New Points — Discretion to permit new issues on appeal
An appellate court has discretion to allow a point not raised below to be argued on appeal, but will only do so where it is assured that full justice can be done to the parties on the existing record.
Legislation cited (6)
Cases cited (2)
- Christine Bitaraheho v Dr. Edward Kakonge (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1999)
- North Staffordshire Railway Co v Edge [1920] AC 254
Cases citing this judgment (3)
How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.
Bamu Partners & Auctioneers v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 33 of 2000) [2001] UGCA 33 (5 January 2001)
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.