Lawrence Muwanga v Stephen Kyeyune (Legal Representative of Christine Kisamba, deceased) [2002] UGSC 5

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed a judgment creditor's second appeal against orders releasing a house and kibanja from attachment. On court fees, non-payment in the objection proceedings did not render them a nullity; under the proviso to Rule 6 of the Court Fees, Fines and Deposits Rules a court may order a defaulting party to pay fees later, validating the proceedings. On the merits, the property had vested absolutely in the deceased debtor's widow and children by a 1993 deed of gift, so it never formed part of his estate and was not liable to execution. Further, no notice to show cause was served on the deceased's legal representatives under Order 19 Rule 19(1)(b), and a judicial sale of immovable property is not complete and may be set aside.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the order releasing the house and kibanja from attachment and sale was upheld

Facts

In 1997 the appellant sued Godfrey N. Kisamba to recover a debt of shs.16,300,000, and a consent judgment was entered against him on 11 August 1997. However, on 17 August 1993 — before becoming indebted to the appellant — Kisamba had by deed of gift donated his house at Mengo, Kisenyi and a kibanja at Bakuli to his wife Christine Kisamba and their children. Kisamba died on 17 January 1998. His widow and his brother later obtained letters of administration. The High Court nevertheless issued a notice to show cause addressed to the deceased and a warrant of attachment, and the house was sold by a court bailiff on 10 November 1999 without the widow being served notice of the intended sale. After bailiffs threatened to evict her, Christine Kisamba — by then a co-administrator of the estate — instituted objection proceedings. The High Court released the property from attachment, finding she held it on her own account, and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision.

Issues

1. Whether the objection proceedings were a nullity because no court fees were paid when they were instituted in the High Court.
2. Whether the courts below erred in releasing from attachment property that had already been sold off in execution.
3. Whether objection proceedings could be entertained where the property the subject of the proceedings had already been disposed of.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Costs of the appeal to the respondent in this Court and in the courts below.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 Rule 55
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 Rule 51
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 Rule 19(1)(b)
• Court Fees, Fines and Deposits Rules (Cap.41) Rule 6
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 126(2)(e)

Cases cited (5)

• Unta Exports Ltd v Customs (1970) EA 648
• Makula International v Cardinal Emmanuel Nsubuga (1982) HCB 11
• Yese Ruzambira v Kimbowa Builders & Construction Ltd (1976) HCB 278
• Intraship (U) Ltd v G.M. Combine (U) Ltd and F. Mungereza (HCCS No. 14 of 1999)
• Jandu v Kirpar & Another (1975) EA 225

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Multiple ICD(U) Limited v Jaco Commercial Agencies Limited (Civil Appeal No.125 of 2020)
• Zimbe v Uganda and 2 Others (Civil Appeal 11 of 2023)

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