Iman Shafik Bashir v Habte Ghebrehiwot Zerizchi (Miscellaneous Application No. 2372 of 2024)
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 property subject to a land sale agreement where the purchaser has paid 68% of the purchase price and taken possession creates an equitable interest in the purchaser that is liable for attachment in execution of a judgment debt owed by the purchaser to the vendor. The judgment debtor's equitable interest in property registered in the judgment creditor's name can be attached to satisfy the debt where the deposit was intended for purchase and completion did not materialise.
Outcome
Application dismissed; applicant ordered to vacate property within 30 days to allow sale in execution
Facts
The respondent obtained judgment against the applicant for USD 130,000 arising from a land sale agreement dated 27 June 2022. Under the agreement, the applicant was to purchase property comprised in LRV 218 Folio 8 for USD 410,000. The applicant paid USD 260,000 initially and later USD 20,000, leaving a balance of USD 130,000. The respondent commenced execution proceedings and attached the suit property for sale. The applicant objected to the attachment on the ground that the property was registered in the respondent's name and therefore not liable for attachment. The applicant and his family were in physical possession of the property. The respondent argued that the applicant had an equitable interest in the property having paid 68% of the purchase price and taken possession, making it the only property available for execution.
Issues
- Whether the property comprised in LRV Folio 8, a lease from Mailo Block 257 Plot 998 at Munyonyo, Kyadondo is liable for attachment by the respondent/judgment creditor?
- Whether the property comprised in LRV Folio 8, a lease from Mailo Block 257 Plot 998 at Munyonyo, Kyadondo should be released from attachment?
- Whether court should issue a warrant of eviction against the applicant in accordance with the Constitution (Land Eviction) (Practice) Directions 2021?
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Property comprised in LRV 218 Folio 8, a lease from Mailo Block 257 Plot 998 at Munyonyo, Kyadondo shall not be released from attachment.
- Applicant shall render to the respondent vacant possession of the suit property within 30 days from the date of this ruling, for purposes of effecting its sale.
- Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (13)
- Judicature Act Cap 16 s.33
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.34(1)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.38(b)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.44(1)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 22 rule 55
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 22 rule 55(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 22 rule 56
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 22 rule 57
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 rule 1
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 rule 3
- Registration of Titles Act Cap 240 s.59
- Constitution (Land Eviction) (Practice) Directions 2021 paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 10
Cases cited (12)
- Kabiito Karamagi v Yanjian Uganda Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1202 of 2021)
- Imelda Nassanga v Stanbic Bank (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2005)
- Labanito Okwajja vs Giripasio Okello (1985) HCB 85
- Kampala Bottlers v Daminico (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
- Patel versus Patel (1992-1993) HCB 137
- Ndigejjerawa vs Kizito & Anor [1953] 7 ULR 31
- John Katarikawe vs William Katwiremu & Another [1977] HCB 211
- Katimbo Foustin Ntambara v Vicent Senoga (Miscellaneous Application No. 1147 of 2022)
- Khakale E. t/a New Elgon Textiles v. Banyamini W (in the matter of Mugunjo) [1976] HCB 31
- Biira Esther Kabaseke Kule v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 1261 of 2018)
- Harilal & Co. vs Buganda Industries Ltd [1960] 318
- Kasozi Ddamba vs M/s Male Construction Service [1981] HCB 26
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.