Wakilii

Kalenzi and Others v Verjee and Another (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 897 OF 2000)

High Court · [2000] UGHC 52 · 2000 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application arising out of High Court Civil Suit No. 376 of 1998 to release attached property from execution
Decision
Property released from attachment

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

Receivers appointed by a legal mortgagee hold attached property on behalf of the mortgagee, not the judgment debtor, and such property is not liable to attachment in execution of a judgment against the debtor company. The court allowed the application and ordered release of property from attachment where receivers took possession on behalf of East African Development Bank as debenture holders prior to the attachment.

Outcome

Property released from attachment

Facts

The applicants were appointed as receivers and managers by East African Development Bank on 30 May 2000 and took possession of all movable and immovable properties of Clovergen Fish and Foods Ltd. On 5 July 2000, court bailiffs and policemen occupied the premises in execution of orders of attachment and sale in satisfaction of a decree obtained by the respondents. The respondents argued that when the decree was filed for execution on 8 June 2000 at the Registrar of Companies, there was no notification of the appointment of receivers. The applicants brought this application under Order 19 rules 55, 56, 57 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking release of the property from attachment on grounds that the properties were in their hands as receivers for the benefit of East African Development Bank as debenture holders.

Issues

  1. Whether the movable and immovable properties attached in execution were not liable to attachment on the ground that they were in the possession of the applicants as Receivers and Managers for the benefit of East African Development Bank as debenture holders.
  2. Whether the applicants as receivers held the attached property on their own account or in trust for the judgment debtor.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The movable and immovable properties of the judgment debtor be released from attachment.
  • The costs of the application be provided for by the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Execution — Objection to Attachment — Property in Possession of Receivers
Where property attached in execution is in the possession of receivers appointed by a debenture holder, the objector must show that at the date of attachment he had some interest in the property and that the property was in his possession not on account of the judgment debtor but on account of another person.
Civil Procedure — Execution — Objection Proceedings — Scope of Investigation
The sole question to be investigated in objection proceedings under Order 19 rule 57 of the Civil Procedure Rules is one of possession at the date of attachment. Questions of legal right and title are not relevant except insofar as they may affect the decision as to whether the objector held property on his own account or in trust for the judgment debtor.
Company Law — Receivers and Managers — Status and Powers — Possession of Company Property
Although receivers are in law the agents of the debtor company, where they are appointed by a legal mortgagee they hold the property to pay the debts to the mortgagee and possess the property on behalf of the mortgagee, not on account of the judgment debtor.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.19 r.55
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.19 r.56
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.19 r.57
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.19 r.89

Cases cited (2)

  • Herilal & Co v Buganda Industries Ltd [1960] EA 318
  • Transafrica Assurance Co Ltd v National Social Security Fund (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1999)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kalenzi and Others v Verjee and Another (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 897 OF 2000) [2000] UGHC 52 (1 November 2000)
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.