Wakilii

Namoda v The New Vision Printing Publishers Corporation (Miscellaneous Application 27 of 1995)

High Court · [1996] UGHC 66 · 1996 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to pay decretal amount by instalments under section 101 Civil Procedure Act, from H.C.C.S. No. 1 of 1995
Decision
Application struck out for being improperly brought before the court

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

An application to pay a decretal amount by instalments under section 101 Civil Procedure Act must be brought by Chamber Summons under Order 18 rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules, not by Notice of Motion. The court struck out the application because it was improperly brought. Additionally, the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for payment by instalments, having made multiple inconsistent payment promises and provided no medical evidence to support a claim of sickness.

Outcome

Application struck out for being improperly brought before the court

Facts

Judgment was delivered against the applicant in H.C.C.S. No. 1 of 1995 on 10 February 1995 for UGX 19,377,155 plus taxed costs of UGX 1,667,069. A warrant of arrest to commit the applicant to civil prison was issued and expired on 18 December 1995. Over ten months had passed since judgment without payment. The applicant allegedly paid UGX 3.5 million and sought leave to pay the balance by instalments of UGX 500,000 fortnightly. The respondent initially requested 10 million upfront, which the applicant found too harsh. In correspondence between April and November 1995, the applicant made various payment proposals: two instalments within two weeks, payment over 4-6 months, minimum monthly payment of UGX 3 million, and later an initial deposit of UGX 500,000 with another payment within one month. The applicant claimed financial constraints and sickness prevented payment but produced no medical evidence. The application was brought by Notice of Motion under section 101 Civil Procedure Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for leave to pay the decretal amount by instalments under section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. Whether the application was properly brought before the court by Notice of Motion rather than Chamber Summons under Order 18 rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Payment by Instalments — Proper Mode of Application
An application for leave to pay a decretal amount by instalments must be brought by Chamber Summons under Order 18 rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules, not by Notice of Motion under section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Civil Procedure — Payment by Instalments — Sufficient Cause
A mere statement of financial constraints without evidence disclosing details of such constraints does not constitute sufficient cause to warrant an order for payment of a judgment debt by instalments.
Civil Procedure — Payment by Instalments — Conduct of Judgment Debtor
Where a judgment debtor has made multiple inconsistent payment proposals and failed to honour previous promises to pay, the court may refuse to grant leave to pay by instalments on the ground that the applicant cannot stand by his words.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Keshavji Jethabhai & Bros Ltd v Saleh Abdulla (1959) EA 260
  • A Majabali Alidina Restulla Alidina & Anor (1961) EA 565
  • Standard Chartered Bank v Cloud 10 Ltd (1988-90) MCB 84
  • Namukasa v Bukya (1967) EA 433

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Namoda v The New Vision Printing Publishers Corporation (Miscellaneous Application 27 of 1995) [1996] UGHC 66 (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.