Wakilii

Lawrence Namoda v The New Vision Printing and Publishing Corporation (Miscellaneous Application 27 of 1995)

High Court · [1996] UGHC 104 · 1996 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to pay decretal amount by instalments following judgment entered against applicant
Decision
Application struck out for improper procedure

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

The court struck out the application with costs. The application was brought by Notice of Motion under section 101 CPA, when the proper procedure required a Chamber Summons under Order 18 rule 11 CPR. Further, the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for instalment payment, having made multiple unfulfilled payment promises over ten months and providing no credible medical or financial evidence.

Outcome

Application struck out for improper procedure

Facts

Judgment was delivered against the applicant on 10 February 1995 for UGX 19,377,055 plus taxed costs of UGX 1,667,069. The applicant allegedly paid UGX 3.5 million but a warrant to arrest and commit him to civil prison was issued, expiring on 18 December 1995. The applicant sought leave to pay the debt by instalments of UGX 500,000 fortnightly. The respondent opposed, pointing to the applicant's conduct over ten months: he had written multiple letters proposing various payment schemes (two instalments in two weeks, 4-6 months, minimum UGX 3 million monthly, UGX 500,000 deposit with further payment in one month) but failed to honour any of them. By the hearing date, over ten months had passed since judgment with minimal payment.

Issues

  1. Whether the application to pay the decretal amount by instalments was properly brought before the court under section 101 Civil Procedure Act by Notice of Motion.
  2. Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant payment of the decretal amount by instalments.

Orders

  • Application struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Payment by Instalments — Proper Procedure
An application for leave to pay a decretal amount by instalments must be brought by Chamber Summons under Order 18 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, not by Notice of Motion under section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act, and failure to follow the correct procedure will result in the application being struck out.
Civil Procedure — Payment by Instalments — Sufficient Cause
To succeed on an application to pay by instalments, the judgment debtor must demonstrate sufficient cause, including credible evidence of financial constraints or other circumstances preventing immediate payment; mere assertions without supporting evidence, coupled with a history of broken payment promises, do not constitute sufficient cause.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Keshavji Jethabhai & Bros Ltd v Salaeh Abdulla (1959) EA 260
  • A. Majabali Alidina Restulla Alidina & Aner, (19&1) E.A. 5&5
  • Standard Chartered Bank v Cloud 10 Ltd (1988-90) MCB 84
  • Namukasa v. Bukya, (196?) E.A. 433

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lawrence Namoda v The New Vision Printing and Publishing Corporation (Miscellaneous Application 27 of 1995) [1996] UGHC 104 (18 September 1996)
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.