Godfrey Mubiru v Barclays Bank of Uganda Limited (Civil Suit 1004 of 1990)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

Held that the decree dated 5 May 1992 was a nullity because it was signed by the Registrar without seeking the approval of the defendant's counsel as required by Order 18 rule 7(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The rule embodies the principle of audi alterem partem and cannot be reduced to a mere technicality. The warrant of attachment was cancelled and the parties directed to appear before the court to settle the terms of the decree in accordance with proper procedure.

Outcome

Decree declared a nullity; warrant of attachment cancelled; matter remitted for proper settlement of decree terms

Facts

Judgment was given in favour of the plaintiff on 5 May 1992 by Okalebo Ag. J. The acting judge omitted to compute figures for special damages. On 25 October 1993, the court directed that special damages be computed by the registrar with counsel's assistance. The defendant's counsel withdrew from the computation proceedings. The Registrar extracted and signed a decree without seeking the defendant's approval. That decree was set aside by Katutsi Ag. J., who ordered the judgment holder to submit a draft decree to the judgment debtor for approval, amendment, or rejection within ten days. Instead of complying with this order, the parties appeared before Tinyinondi J. on 27 November 1995 to determine the draft decree terms. On 10 February 1995, the judge directed compliance with Order 18 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Supreme Court observed on 16 June 1995 that the decree should be settled by a High Court judge if parties could not agree. On 8 October 1996, the Principal Judge directed the Registrar to sign a draft decree. On 30 October 1996, the Principal Judge issued a further memo directing compliance with Order 18 rule 7(2). The respondent sent out auctioneers to effect attachment on 29 October 1996. The defendant applied to set aside the decree and stay execution.

Issues

1. Whether the decree dated 5/5/92 was invalid for non-compliance with Order 18 rule 7(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. Whether execution should be stayed pending appeal.

Orders

• There is no decree to set aside as the so-called decree of 5/5/92 is a nullity.
• The warrant of attachment dated 29/10/96 and the execution therein are hereby cancelled.
• The interim order of 4/11/96 is hereby vacated. The motor vehicles attached should be returned to the Applicants.
• Both parties and/or their Counsel are directed to appear before this court to have the terms of the decree disposed on 14/11/96.
• Each party will bear its own costs for this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 18 rule 7(2)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Barclays Bank of Uganda v Godfrey Mubiru [1999] UGSC 22

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