Wakilii

Car and General v Uchumi Supermarkets Uganda & Ors (HCMA 82 of 2016)

High Court · [2016] UGCOMMC 22 · 2016 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for release of property from attachment arising from execution proceedings in HCCS No. 30 of 2016 and HCMA No. 963 of 2015
Decision
Property released from attachment and ordered to be returned to the Applicant with immediate effect

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

Where a third party objector demonstrates prima facie that property attached under execution was not paid for by the judgment debtor and remained the property of the objector at the time of attachment, the property must be released from attachment. The court found that the generator remained the Applicant's property as the first Respondent had not paid for it despite delivery, and ordered its immediate release.

Outcome

Property released from attachment and ordered to be returned to the Applicant with immediate effect

Facts

The Applicant supplied and installed a Cummins diesel generator worth US$108,858 to the 1st Respondent's Gulu branch in April 2015. Payment was due within 30 days but was never made. The 1st Respondent went into receivership. The generator was subsequently attached by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents pursuant to a court order obtained from the High Court Land Division on 15 October 2015 in execution of a judgment debt owed by the 1st Respondent. The Applicant filed an objector application seeking release of the generator from attachment on the ground that it remained the Applicant's property as the 1st Respondent had never paid for it. The 1st Respondent conceded ownership and non-payment.

Issues

  1. Whether the Cummins Diesel Generator attached by court order was liable to attachment.
  2. Whether the Applicant had a proprietary interest in the generator at the time of attachment.
  3. Whether the generator was in possession of the judgment debtor on his own account at the time of attachment.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • The Cummins Diesel Generator Prime Power 500 kVA/400 KW (Generator serial number 114K745960 and Cummins Engine serial number 7976 7197) is released from attachment by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents.
  • The generator shall be handed over to the Applicant/Objector with immediate effect.
  • Costs of the application to be borne by the judgment debtor (1st Respondent).

Rules and key headnotes

Objector Proceedings — Release of Property from Attachment — Grounds
Under Order 22 rule 57 of the Civil Procedure Rules, property must be released from attachment where the court is satisfied that at the time of attachment the property was not in possession of the judgment debtor on his own account or as his own property, but was held on account of or in trust for some other person.
Objector Proceedings — Standard of Proof — Prima Facie Evidence
An objector application under Order 22 rules 55-57 of the Civil Procedure Rules is a summary procedure based on prima facie findings of evidence and is not conclusive of ownership. The aggrieved party may institute a suit under Order 22 rule 60 for final determination of the question of ownership, but if no such suit is instituted, the order in the objector proceeding becomes conclusive.
Sale of Goods — Passing of Property — Non-Payment
Where goods are delivered under a contract of sale but payment is never made, property in the goods does not pass to the buyer and remains with the seller, making those goods not liable to attachment in execution against the buyer as judgment debtor.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (3)

  • Harilal & Company v Buganda Industries Ltd [1960] 1 EA 318
  • John Verjee and Another v Simon Kalenzi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 71 of 2000)
  • C. Baguma v Highland Agricultural Export Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 655 of 2001)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Car and General v Uchumi Supermarkets Uganda & Ors (HCMA 82 of 2016) [2016] UGCommC 22 (9 March 2016)
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.