Wakilii

Global Forwarders and Clearing Ltd v Henry Mugenyi t a Kifaru High Court Bailiffs and Auctioneers (HCT-00-CC-CS 188 of 2002)

High Court · [2006] UGCOMMC 28 · 2006 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money paid to defendant bailiff following execution of earlier judgment
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with interest and costs

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 where a bailiff receives funds following execution of a judgment, he is duty-bound to make full accountability. The burden of proving payment lies on the party alleging it. Money received by one person that rightfully belongs to another is recoverable as money had and received on quasi-contractual principles. The court found the defendant failed to account for Shs.18,300,922 and entered judgment for the plaintiff in that sum with interest at 23% per annum from judgment.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with interest and costs

Facts

The plaintiff won HCCS No. 583/1998 against Uganda Revenue Authority and was awarded Shs.30,236,300 plus interest and costs, totaling Shs.80,548,055. Following execution, URA paid this sum to the defendant, a court bailiff. The plaintiff received only Shs.15,000,000 on 12 July 2001 and Shs.18,000,000 on 20 July 2001, totaling Shs.33,000,000. A cheque for Shs.26,000,000 issued on 13 July 2001 bounced. The defendant acknowledged owing Shs.6,000,000 and claimed he paid an additional Shs.2,255,000, which the plaintiff denied. The defendant's lawyers declined service, stating they had lost touch with their client. The suit proceeded exparte after service through the press.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to payment of Shs.18,300,922 from the defendant.
  2. Whether the defendant proved payment of Shs.2,255,000 to the plaintiff.
  3. Whether the plaintiff committed to receive less than the decretal amount.
  4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to general damages not pleaded in the plaint.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff in the sum of Shs.18,300,922.
  • Interest awarded at the rate of 23% per annum on the decretal amount from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • Prayer for general damages disallowed.
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Burden of Proof — Payment — Party Alleging Payment Must Prove It
Where a party alleges that it paid the other and the other denies receipt of the payment, the burden is on the party who alleges payment to prove it.
Quasi-Contract — Money Had and Received — Unjust Enrichment
Money which is paid to one person which rightfully belongs to another is said to be money had and received by that person to the use of the rightful owner. It is recoverable by an action on the footing of an implied promise to pay or on the basis of unjust enrichment, where the defendant has received money which, in justice and equity, belongs to the plaintiff under circumstances which render the receipt of it by the defendant a receipt to the use of the plaintiff.
Pleadings — Amendment — Claim Not Pleaded Cannot Be Granted
A party is bound to prove the case as alleged by him and as covered in the issues framed. He will not be allowed at trial to set up a case inconsistent with what he alleged in his pleadings except by way of amendment of the pleadings. A claim for general damages not pleaded in the plaint cannot be granted at trial.
Bailiffs — Duty of Accountability
A bailiff who receives funds following execution of a judgment is duty-bound to make full accountability of the amount received to the judgment creditor.

Cases cited (1)

  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank [1994-95] HCB 54

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Global Forwarders and Clearing Ltd v Henry Mugenyi t a Kifaru High Court Bailiffs and Auctioneers (HCT-00-CC-CS 188 of 2002) [2006] UGCommC 28 (14 June 2006)
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.