Jomayi Property Consultants Limited v Tumukunde (Miscellaneous Application 1517 of 2021)
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 a judgment creditor cannot execute a consent decree before discharging his own obligations under that decree where the obligations are reciprocal and indivisible. Where a seller has contracted to sell land and the purchaser has acquired equitable ownership, the land is not property over which the seller has disposing power for his own benefit and cannot be attached in execution of a decree against him. Application allowed and execution stayed until the respondent deposits title deeds in court as required by the consent decree.
Outcome
Execution stayed and land released from attachment pending respondent's compliance with obligations under consent decree
Facts
Applicant, a real estate company, purchased 200 acres of land from respondent in 2012 for shs. 3,500,000,000. Applicant subdivided and resold plots to third parties with respondent's permission. Disputes arose and parties entered a consent decree on 24 June 2015 requiring applicant to pay shs. 1,087,487,825 in instalments. The decree required respondent to deposit title deeds in court within two weeks of receiving the first instalment of shs. 100,000,000. Applicant paid shs. 100,000,000 and subsequently made additional payments totalling shs. 3,344,721,000, but respondent never deposited the title deeds. Respondent obtained a warrant of attachment dated 9 November 2021 to execute the decree by attaching and selling the land for recovery of shs. 1,041,487,825. Applicant applied to stay or set aside execution on grounds that respondent had not performed his own obligations under the decree and that the land had been resold to third parties who were now beneficial owners.
Issues
- Whether a judgment creditor can execute a consent decree before performing his own obligations imposed under the decree.
- Whether land sold under a contract capable of specific performance can be attached in execution of a decree against the seller.
- Whether obligations under the consent decree are reciprocal and indivisible such that execution cannot proceed unilaterally.
Orders
- Application allowed.
- Land comprised in Mawokota Block 31 plots 11, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 at Njagi, Sabagabo in Mpigi District released from attachment.
- Execution of the decree stayed until the respondent deposits the title deeds in court as required by the consent decree.
- Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
Cases cited (5)
- Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch D 9
- Lysaght v Edwards (1876) 2 Ch D 499
- Chang v Registrar of Titles (1976) 137 CLR 177
- Rayner v Preston (1881) 18 Ch D 1
- Jerome v Kelly [2004] 1 WLR 1409
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.