Wakilii

Lamunu v Kaggwa (Miscellaneous Application 174 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 148 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Objector application seeking release of attached property from execution arising from Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2017
Decision
Application dismissed; property remains attached and execution may proceed unless judgment debtors pay the decree sum of UGX 62,938,500

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 an objector claiming interest in attached property must prove possession in their own right, not on account of the judgment debtor. The court found the applicant's claim that she purchased the property from one of the judgment debtors before attachment was not credible due to material contradictions in evidence concerning the place and circumstances of the alleged sale. The applicant's possession was held to be on account of and in trust for the judgment debtor. Application dismissed with costs limited to disbursements only.

Outcome

Application dismissed; property remains attached and execution may proceed unless judgment debtors pay the decree sum of UGX 62,938,500

Facts

The respondent obtained a decree with costs of UGX 62,938,500 against seven judgment debtors following Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2017 decided in December 2018. A warrant of attachment was issued on 28 June 2022 against land and a building at plot 15 Kiguka Road, Gulu City, said to belong to one of the judgment debtors, Ocan Charles. The applicant objected to the attachment claiming she had purchased the property from Ocan Charles on 16 December 2021, six months before the attachment. She asserted she took possession, installed a caretaker, and carried out further development works including plastering, fitting doors, plumbing, and fencing. The respondent opposed the application alleging the sale agreement was fake and designed to defeat execution, and that the applicant was related to Ocan Charles. During court inquiry, material contradictions emerged in the applicant's evidence. The applicant claimed the sale agreement was signed in Kampala, but her spouse and the LC1 Chairperson who both witnessed it stated it was signed in Gulu City. The applicant claimed she first met the vendor on the sale date, but the LC1 Chairman testified the vendor brought the applicant to his home prior to the sale. The applicant's son in Canada allegedly provided UGX 300,000,000 in cash brought by another son. Judgment debtors' counsel did not disclose the alleged sale when they appeared on a notice to show cause in June 2022.

Issues

  1. Whether the land and the storey building situate in Airfield Sub Ward, plot 15, Kiguka Road, Bar-Dege Layibi Division, Gulu City was attached by Court?
  2. Whether the property should be released from attachment?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Property comprised in Airfield Sub Ward, plot 15, Kiguka Road, Bar-Dege Layibi Division, Gulu City not released from attachment.
  • Execution process to progress unless judgment debtors pay the sum of UGX 62,938,500 to redeem the property.
  • Costs to the respondent.
  • Taxed costs limited to recovery of disbursements only as respondent was self-represented.

Rules and key headnotes

Execution — Attachment of Immovable Property — Validity and Requirements
Attachment of immovable property crystallizes once a warrant is issued by court and served on the judgment debtor in any manner contemplated by Order 22 rule 51(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, including service by advertisement where ordinary service is not possible.
Execution — Attachment of Immovable Property — Requirement to Deliver Certificate of Title
Under section 48 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court is barred from proceeding with the sale of any immovable property under a decree of execution until the duplicate certificate of title has been lodged with the court, but delivery up of the certificate of title is not a precondition to the validity of the attachment itself — it is a precursor to any subsequent sale.
Objector Proceedings — Burden of Proof and Test for Release from Attachment
In objector proceedings under Order 22 rules 55-58 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the objector must adduce evidence to show that at the date of attachment they had some interest in the property, and the central question to be investigated is one of possession — whether on the date of attachment the property was in possession of the objector in their own right, or whether the objector held it on account of or in trust for the judgment debtor.
Objector Proceedings — Investigation and Court Powers
Under Order 22 rule 55 of the Civil Procedure Rules read with section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and section 39(2) of the Judicature Act, the court conducting an objector investigation may examine the objector under oath and summon other material witnesses to clarify matters arising from affidavit evidence, including the bailiff and persons with knowledge of possession, in order to establish the truth of the matter.
Credibility of Witnesses — Effect of Material Contradictions
Grave inconsistencies and contradictions in a witness's evidence, unless satisfactorily explained, will usually result in the evidence being rejected, whereas minor inconsistencies unless they point to deliberate untruthfulness will be ignored.
Objector Proceedings — Sham Transactions to Defeat Execution
Where material contradictions in an objector's evidence create serious doubts as to the genuineness of an alleged sale transaction, and the circumstances suggest the transaction was contrived between the objector and the judgment debtor to defeat the execution process, the court will find that the objector's possession is on account of and in trust for the judgment debtor and refuse to release the property from attachment.
Costs — Self-Representing Litigant — Limitation to Disbursements
Where a successful party was self-representing, the taxed costs awarded to them shall be limited to recovery of disbursements only, as a self-representing litigant cannot claim what advocates charge for acting for clients under the law governing the practice and remuneration of advocates.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (8)

  • Ndawula Ronald v Ugafin Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1701 of 2014)
  • Re Overseas Aviation Engineering (GB) Ltd [1962] 3 All ER 12
  • Chotabhai M Patel Vs. Chatrabhai Patel & another [1958] E.A 743
  • Sokempex Interstate Co. Ltd Vs. Eurafro General Import and Export Co. Ltd [1981] HCB 75
  • Uganda Mineral Waters Ltd Vs. Amin Piran & Kampala Minerals Ltd (1994-95) HCB 87
  • Harilal & Co. Vs. Buganda Industries Ltd [1960] 1 E.A 318
  • David Muhenda & 3 Others v Margaret Kamuje (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1999)
  • Alfred Tajar v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1969)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lamunu v Kaggwa (Miscellaneous Application 174 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 148 (19 May 2023)
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.