Wakilii

De Silva v Badden (C.C. 277-1931.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1932] EACA 45 · 1932 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for order directing third party garnishee to pay decretal amount to judgment creditor following attachment before judgment
Decision
Application granted; third party garnishee ordered to pay decretal amount and costs into court

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 held that a creditor may attach moneys held by a third party for the defendant, and that the third party stands in the shoes of the defendant. The position is the same as if the moneys were in the defendant's own possession. An agreement between the defendant and another creditor to hold funds pending litigation does not prevent attachment by a prior attaching creditor.

Outcome

Application granted; third party garnishee ordered to pay decretal amount and costs into court

Facts

On 11 September 1931, S. D'Souza commenced action against F. T. J. Badden in the Resident Magistrate's Court and obtained a writ of attachment before judgment on the same day. The attachment was served on Mr. Hogan, who held certain moneys belonging to Badden. On 14 September 1931, following no exeat regno proceedings, Badden signed an authority directing Hogan to use funds in his possession to pay off in full the claim in D'Souza v Badden. On 29 September 1931, Mr. Kaplan obtained a prohibitory order in Supreme Court Civil Case No. 277 of 1931, also served on Hogan. D'Souza then applied for an order directing Hogan to pay the balance of the decretal amount and costs due under the Resident Magistrate's decree.

Issues

  1. Whether a creditor may attach moneys held by a third party where those moneys are held to pay specific claims against the defendant.
  2. Whether the position of a third party holding moneys for a defendant is the same as if the moneys were in the hands of the defendant himself.

Orders

  • Mr. Hogan to pay into Court, to the credit of the plaintiff in R.M. Civil Case No. 3793 of 1931, the balance of the decretal amount together with costs due to the plaintiff.
  • Notice of application for payment out to be given to the plaintiff in Supreme Court Civil Case No. 277 of 1931.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Attachment Before Judgment — Third Party Garnishee — Priority of Creditors
Where a third party holds moneys belonging to a judgment debtor, any creditor may attach those moneys by attachment before judgment, and the third party stands in the shoes of the judgment debtor for purposes of attachment.
Attachment Before Judgment — Effect of Subsequent Agreement
An agreement between a judgment debtor and another creditor to hold funds pending litigation does not defeat the rights of a creditor who has already obtained and served an attachment before judgment on the third party holding those funds.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

De Silva v Badden (C.C. 277-1931.) [1932] EACA 45 (1 January 1932)
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.