Wakilii

Engeye Bakery Limited v Byatukoreire T/A Shrew Solutions Limited and Another (Civil Miscellaneous Application 236 of 2022)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 19 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for orders arising from alleged unlawful execution of decree by court bailiff
Decision
Application granted; 1st respondent bailiff held solely liable for unlawful execution; arrest warrant issued for prosecution

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

Held that the execution by the 1st respondent court bailiff was unlawful, carried out in bad faith, and involved over-attachment of property exceeding the decretal sum. The bailiff attached property valued at UGX 269,350,000 not mentioned in the warrant and failed to comply with procedural requirements under the Judicature (Court Bailiffs) Rules including filing an inventory or returning the warrant. The 2nd respondent decree holder was not held liable as there was no evidence of connivance or collusion. The bailiff was ordered to pay the value of wrongly attached property, punitive damages, and an arrest warrant was issued.

Outcome

Application granted; 1st respondent bailiff held solely liable for unlawful execution; arrest warrant issued for prosecution

Facts

The 2nd respondent obtained a decree against the applicant for UGX 20,700,000. The 1st respondent, a court bailiff, executed the decree through EMA 3042 of 2018 by attaching the applicant's property. The applicant alleged that the bailiff attached property worth UGX 421,470,000, far exceeding the decretal sum, and included items not mentioned in the warrant of attachment valued at UGX 269,350,000. The bailiff conducted the attachment in the absence of the applicant's directors, failed to file an inventory in court, did not return the warrant by the stipulated date, and refused to comply with subsequent court orders to avail the attached property for inspection. The 1st respondent did not file any affidavit in reply despite being duly served.

Issues

  1. Whether the execution of decree vide EMA 3042 of 2018 arising from Civil Suit No. 1071 of 2017 was unlawful?
  2. Who is responsible for the unlawful conduct in the execution?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The 1st respondent is ordered to pay the value of the wrongly and illegally attached property in total sum of UGX 400,770,000 to the applicant.
  • The 1st respondent should pay to the 2nd respondent a sum of UGX 20,700,000 as the decretal sum.
  • The 1st respondent should pay to the applicant a sum of UGX 100,000,000 as punitive damages.
  • An order to arrest the 1st respondent Byatukoreire Fredrick T/A Shrew Solutions Ltd issues and he should be prosecuted for theft or conversion or any other related offences forthwith.
  • The 1st respondent shall pay an interest of 20% per annum on all the awards from the date of this ruling.
  • The 1st respondent to pay costs of the application to the applicant and 2nd respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Execution of Decrees — Over-Attachment — Bailiff's Duty
A court bailiff has a duty to seize only such quantity of goods as would reasonably be sufficient to pay the decretal amount. Where the bailiff seizes more than reasonably necessary, prima facie he is a wrongdoer. The bailiff must exercise a reasonable and honest discretion in estimating what the goods will realize at sale or auction.
Execution of Decrees — Procedural Requirements — Inventory
Under Rule 16(10) of the Judicature (Court Bailiffs) Rules, a court bailiff executing a warrant of attachment must make an inventory of the attached property in triplicate stating the appropriate value of each item, signed by the bailiff and the debtor if possible, and witnessed by a member of the local council. The original copy must be sent to the court that issued the warrant. Failure to comply with these procedural requirements renders the execution unlawful.
Court Bailiffs — Judicial Immunity — Limits
Section 46(2) of the Judicature Act provides qualified immunity to court bailiffs for lawful or authorized acts done in execution of court orders. However, a bailiff is not entitled to absolute judicial immunity and incurs personal liability when he acts illegally, negligently, insolently, oppressively, or in excess of powers given by the warrant of attachment.
Execution of Decrees — Judgment Creditor Liability — Agency
A court bailiff executing a warrant issued by court is not an agent of the judgment creditor but rather an agent of the court. A judgment creditor cannot be held vicariously liable for the bailiff's unlawful acts unless there is evidence that the judgment creditor connived or colluded with the bailiff resulting in unlawful execution.
Wrongful Execution — Trespass — Conversion
Wrongful execution is both trespass and a criminal act. Where a bailiff refuses to return attached property despite court orders, such refusal implies conversion of the goods to the bailiff's own use or illegal sale. Such actions constitute contempt of court and warrant punitive damages to protect judgment debtors from rogue bailiffs.
Affidavit Evidence — Uncontroverted Facts
Where facts are sworn in an affidavit and not denied or rebutted by the opposite party, the presumption is that such facts are accepted and amount to an admission. A party who fails to file an affidavit in reply despite being duly served is deemed to have admitted the facts sworn against them.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (11)

  • Catherine Nakkazi v Kirunda and Another [1995] KARL 551
  • Kwesigabo Bamwine and Another v Nytil Picfare (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 70 of 1997)
  • Addillah Shrwa v Sheikh Mohamed Hay Ahmed (Court of Appeal No. 1 of 1976)
  • Gawler v Chaplin and Others (1848) 154 ER 590
  • Massa v Achen [1978] HCB 297
  • Francis Micah v Nuwa Walakira [1995] KARL 36
  • Semakula v Musoke [1981] HCB 267
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Emmanuel Cardinal Nsubuga and Rev. Fr. Dr. Kyeyune (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Maria Onyango Ochola and Others v Hannington Wasswa and Another [1988-1999] HCB 102
  • Bifabusha v Turyazooka [2000] 2 EA 330
  • Fenekasi Semakula v James Musoke [1981] HCB 46

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Engeye Bakery Limited v Byatukoreire T_A Shrew Solutions Limited and Another (Civil Miscellaneous Application 236 of 2022) [2024] UGHCCD 19 (25 January 2024)
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.