Medipharm Sales Limited v Mirza (Miscellaneous Application 780 of 2023)

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.

Holding

Held that an application for review of execution proceedings remains competent even after execution is completed, as courts retain power to remedy illegalities. However, where parties are jointly and severally liable for costs, a judgment creditor may execute against any one debtor for the full amount without apportioning liability. The debtor who pays must seek contribution from co-debtors, not a refund from the creditor. No error apparent on the face of the record existed. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; execution properly conducted against applicant as jointly and severally liable party

Facts

Medipharm Sales Limited sold medicine on credit to Maaz Pharma (A) Ltd in 2017. The respondent, a former director of Maaz Pharma, drew cheques that were dishonoured. Medipharm sued Maaz Pharma and obtained judgment, then obtained a warrant of arrest against its directors including the respondent. The respondent successfully appealed on grounds he was no longer a director when the debt was incurred. Costs were awarded against both Medipharm and Maaz Pharma jointly and severally. The respondent obtained garnishee orders attaching UGX 11,093,100 from Medipharm's bank account for the full amount of taxed costs. Medipharm sought review arguing the costs should have been split equally between itself and Maaz Pharma.

Issues

1. Whether the application for review was competent
2. Whether the execution proceedings should be reviewed

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.33
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.82
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1 Order 46 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1 Order 46 r.2
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1 Order 46 r.8

Cases cited (3)

• Kanyabwera v Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
• Attorney General v Ouma Adea (High Court Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3 of 2013)
• Sebagala v China Palace (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 152 of 2015)

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