Law Development Centre v Serufusa & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 162 of 2017) 2017 UGHCLD 10 (2017-02-10)
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 section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act is an exception to the functus officio rule and empowers the court to determine questions arising between parties relating to execution of a decree. The court found that the decree dated 4 November 2016 was extracted without compliance with Order 21 r.7(2) CPR which requires the successful party to submit a draft decree for approval by the other parties before sealing by the registrar. The decree failed to reflect that the Attorney General was the Third Party and the judgment holder against whom execution should issue for compensation arising from compulsory land acquisition by Government. The decree was set aside and the court ordered a fresh decree be prepared reflecting that the Attorney General as Third Party shall pay the compensation.
Outcome
Decree set aside; execution proceedings against Law Development Centre halted; fresh decree to be prepared showing Attorney General as party liable to pay compensation
Facts
The Law Development Centre (LDC) filed Civil Suit No. 724 of 2003 claiming ownership of land compulsorily acquired by Government from the defendant Serufusa under the Land Acquisition (Makerere) Instrument 1987. Serufusa counterclaimed for compensation. LDC applied by third party notice in Miscellaneous Application No. 362 of 2013 to join the Attorney General as the party liable to compensate Serufusa since Government made the compulsory acquisition. The court ruled that LDC was entitled to indemnity from Government. The Attorney General did not file a defence and default judgment was entered. In the final judgment of 4 November 2016 the court awarded Serufusa compensation and stated that Government shall pay the sums. However the decree extracted did not name the Attorney General as Third Party in its heading. Serufusa's new lawyers commenced garnishee proceedings against LDC's bank accounts. LDC applied to determine who should pay under the decree and to set aside the decree and execution.
Issues
- Whether the court is functus officio in determining questions relating to execution of a decree under section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act.
- Whether the matter is res judicata.
- Whether the deponent to the supporting affidavit had authority to depose on behalf of the Law Development Centre.
- Which party as between the applicant (Law Development Centre) and the Third Party (Attorney General) should pay the amounts stated in the decree dated 4 November 2016.
- Whether the decree was properly drawn and extracted in accordance with Order 21 r.7(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Orders
- Application allowed.
- Decree dated 4 November 2016 set aside.
- A decree properly and clearly reflecting the terms of the judgment to be prepared and extracted in accordance with Order 21 r.7(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (12)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.34
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 57 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 57 r.3
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 21 r.7(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 44
- Civil Procedure Act s.7
- Evidence Act s.102
- Land Acquisition Act s.6(4)
- Land Acquisition (Makerere) Instrument SI 7A of 1987
- Law Development Centre Act s.7
- Law Development Centre Act s.8
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.