Berutsya Nobert v Monaban Company Limited and 2 Others (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2020)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
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.
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 granted the application for attachment before judgment but varied the relief. Rather than ordering attachment of the respondents' motor vehicle, the court ordered the respondents to deposit UGX 100,000,000 as security in court, after which they could take away their vehicle. The court found that the respondents had not demonstrated any property within Uganda other than the vehicle, and that reciprocal enforcement in Tanzania would be costly.
Outcome
Application granted with variation — security ordered in lieu of attachment; vehicle to be released to respondents upon deposit of security
Facts
On 30 December 2019, the applicant while driving motor vehicle UBF 851L with his daughter along Kampala-Masaka Road at Kanoni rammed into the respondents' semi-trailer KBS 741T/ZEO258, which had been parked on the roadside following mechanical breakdown at approximately 5:10 am. The applicant alleged the trailer was recklessly and negligently parked without adequate warnings. Both the applicant and his daughter were admitted at Nkozi Hospital. The applicant reported the matter to Buwama Police Station and subsequently filed Civil Suit No. 004 of 2019 (sic — 2020 per heading). The applicant valued the trailer at approximately UGX 200,000,000 and contended it was the respondents' only known property in Uganda. The applicant sought attachment before judgment to prevent the foreign respondents from removing the vehicle from the jurisdiction and frustrating execution of any decree. The respondents opposed, arguing the first respondent had offices and a fleet of vehicles in Tanzania, Uganda and Tanzania had reciprocal enforcement arrangements, and the second respondent had taken reasonable precautions by placing warning signs.
Issues
- Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for attachment before judgment of the respondents' motor vehicle.
- Whether the respondents' foreign residence and alleged intention to remove the vehicle from the jurisdiction warranted attachment before judgment.
- What amount of security, if any, should be deposited in court to balance the parties' interests pending determination of the main suit.
Orders
- Respondents ordered to deposit UGX 100,000,000 into court account No. 9030012454944 at Stanbic Bank Mpigi branch as security.
- After payment of the security, respondents may take away motor vehicle Reg. No. KBS 741T/ZEO258 from police custody.
- Main suit fixed for hearing on 7 July 2021 at 9:00 am.
- Parties at liberty to continue negotiations and report to court if settlement reached.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.40 r.5(b)(c)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.64
Cases cited (1)
- Makubuya Enockwilly T/A Pollaplast v Songdoh Firms Ltd and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 321 of 2018)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.