Wakilii

Intraship Uganda Limited v G.M. Combine Uganda Limited (Civil Suit No. 44 1993)

High Court · [1994] UGHC 141 · 1994 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Objector proceedings brought by receivers/managers under Order 19 rr 55, 56, 57 and Order 46 r. 1 following attachment and sale of property by judgment creditor
Decision
Application by receivers/managers dismissed on the ground that the attached property had already been sold before the application was heard, rendering the objector proceedings under Order 19 rr 55, 56, 57 inapplicable

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 objector proceedings under Order 19 rr 55, 56, 57 deal with attached property before it is sold. Once property has been sold and a return filed, the court has nothing to investigate under these provisions, as the objector is completely out of their ambit. The objector cannot pursue the proceeds of sale under these rules. The application was dismissed on this ground, with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Application by receivers/managers dismissed on the ground that the attached property had already been sold before the application was heard, rendering the objector proceedings under Order 19 rr 55, 56, 57 inapplicable

Facts

On 1 December 1993, a consent judgment was entered between Intraship (U) Ltd. (judgment creditor) and G.M. Combine (U) Ltd. (judgment debtor). When the judgment creditor began executing the judgment by attaching and selling property, receivers and managers appointed under a debenture on 13 December 1993 brought objector proceedings claiming the attached goods were subject to receivership. The Principal Judge struck out the first application on a preliminary objection that it was brought in the company's name rather than the receivers' individual names. The receivers then brought a fresh application in their own names seeking the same relief. Before this application could be heard, a warrant of attachment and sale was executed on 20 January 1994, and a return was filed on 25 January 1994 showing that a motor vehicle and 70 boxes of soap had been sold, leaving only 100 boxes of soap unsold. An interim order had been granted on 1 February 1994 restraining further sale, but this was after most property had already been sold. The judgment creditor raised preliminary objections to the application.

Issues

  1. Whether objector proceedings under Order 19 rr 55, 56, 57 can be maintained after the attached property has already been sold and a return filed.
  2. Whether receivers appointed under a debenture can bring an application in their own names or must do so in the name of the company that appointed them.
  3. Whether the second preliminary objection was res judicata having been decided by the Principal Judge in an earlier application.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • First preliminary objection upheld.
  • Second preliminary objection dismissed as res judicata.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Objector Proceedings — Scope of Order 19 rr 55, 56, 57 — Property Already Sold
Objector proceedings under Order 19 rr 55, 56, 57 of the Civil Procedure Rules require the court to investigate the objector's interest in attached property before it is sold. Once the property has been sold and a return filed, the court has nothing to investigate as the objector is completely out of the ambit of these rules. The objector cannot pursue the proceeds of sale under these provisions and must seek a remedy elsewhere.
Res Judicata — Previous Ruling on Same Issue Between Related Parties
Where an issue has been directly and substantially raised, heard, and finally decided by a competent court in a previous application involving one of the same parties, that issue is res judicata and cannot be litigated a second time in a subsequent application, even if the parties are not entirely identical. A party dissatisfied with the earlier ruling should have appealed rather than re-raising the same objection.
Receivers — Locus Standi — Capacity to Bring Proceedings in Own Names
Receivers appointed under a debenture are not obliged to bring an application in the name of the principal company, provided the principal is named in the proceedings. The receivers may bring the application in their own names as receivers and managers.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • M/S Ayigihugu & Co. Advocates v Mary Muteteri Munyapkindi [1990] HCB 161
  • Re Pound (Henry) Son and Hichens [1889] 42 Ch D 402
  • Patel v Patel [1958] EA 74

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Intraship Uganda Limited v G.M. Combine Uganda Limited (Civil Suit No. 44_1993) [1994] UGHC 141 (2 March 1994)
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.