Wakilii

Nangoli v Manafa (HCT-04-CV-MA-0143 OF 2001)

High Court · [2009] UGHCCD 2 · 2009 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal by way of notice of motion against Chief Magistrate's order granting special certificate to levy distress for rent
Decision
Application dismissed on preliminary objection — no right of appeal existed

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 there is no statutory right of appeal against a Chief Magistrate's decision to grant a special certificate to levy distress for rent under the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act or Rules. Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides appeal only from orders of a registrar, not from orders of a Chief Magistrate. The proper remedy for illegal, irregular or excessive distress is an action for damages. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed on preliminary objection — no right of appeal existed

Facts

The appellant was a sitting tenant in property LRV 238 F Plot 21 Kumi Road, Mbale. He had initially been granted an offer to purchase the property by the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board, but the offer was terminated. The respondent subsequently purchased the property, secured title, and entered into a tenancy agreement with the appellant. The appellant made some rent payments but fell into arrears. The respondent applied to the Chief Magistrate for a special certificate to levy distress for the unpaid rent under the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act. The Chief Magistrate granted the certificate. Meanwhile, the appellant had separately sued the respondent in the High Court under HCCS No. 12 of 2000 seeking cancellation of the respondent's title, a permanent injunction, and compensation. The appellant then brought this application by notice of motion seeking to appeal the Chief Magistrate's grant of the special certificate, seeking cancellation of the certificate and restraint of the court bailiffs.

Issues

  1. Whether the procedure adopted by the appellant in appealing by way of notice of motion under O.50 r.8 CPR against the Chief Magistrate's grant of a special certificate to levy distress for rent was proper.
  2. Whether there exists a right of appeal against a Chief Magistrate's decision to grant a special certificate to levy distress for rent.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection upheld.
  • Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Right of Appeal — Statutory Creation
An appeal is created by statute and cannot be presumed. There must be an express statutory provision conferring a right of appeal before a party may invoke appellate jurisdiction.
Land & Property — Distress for Rent — Special Certificate — No Right of Appeal
There is no provision for appeal against a decision of a Chief Magistrate or Magistrate Grade I granting a special certificate to levy distress for rent under the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act Cap. 76 or the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Rules.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Order 50 Rule 8 CPR — Scope of Application
Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides for appeal by motion on notice from orders of a registrar to the High Court. It does not provide for appeal from orders of a Chief Magistrate.
Land & Property — Distress for Rent — Remedies for Illegal or Irregular Distress
Where distress for rent is illegal, irregular or excessive, the proper remedy is an action in damages for wrongful distress, which may be brought by the tenant, the owner of the goods, or one having enjoyment and use of the chattels.

Legislation cited (6)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nangoli Vs Manafa (HCT-04-CV-MA-0143 OF 2001) [2009] UGHCCD 2 (9 March 2009)
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.