Wakilii

Nassuna v Britania Products (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 323 of 2002)

High Court · [2002] UGCOMMC 28 · 2002 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application arising from execution proceedings in civil suit
Decision
Application dismissed with no order as to costs

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

Application for release of property from attachment dismissed. Court held that the applicant failed to prove the existence of the claimed semi-permanent structure or loss of goods. Further, the property was not under attachment at the material time because the registered proprietor had already sold it before the application was filed, and the bailiffs had returned their warrant unexecuted.

Outcome

Application dismissed with no order as to costs

Facts

The applicant sought release of property from attachment in execution proceedings arising from Civil Suit No. 248 of 2001. The applicant claimed she had a 25-room semi-permanent structure on the suit land generating monthly rental income of UGX 450,000 and that she lost property including radios, gomesis, and cash during the execution process. Evidence from Lawrence Muwanga, the LC Chairman and caretaker of the property for over 24 years, contradicted the applicant's claims. He deposed that the applicant never had such a structure on the land and never reported the alleged loss to him or to police. The applicant did not challenge these averments in her affidavit-in-reply. The registered proprietor of the land had sold the property on 4 June 2002, seven days before the application was filed on 11 June 2002. The bailiffs had returned their warrant to court unexecuted.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant proved the existence of a 25-room semi-permanent structure and loss of property as claimed.
  2. Whether the property was under attachment at the time of the application.
  3. Whether the court should release the property from attachment under Order 19 rule 57 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Application denied.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Attachment and Sale — Burden of Proof — Uncontroverted Evidence
Where a party makes averments in an affidavit that are crucial to the determination of the matter and the opposing party has the opportunity to controvert those averments but fails to do so, the averments must be taken to be true.
Civil Procedure — Execution — Auctioneer's Authority — Acts Beyond Mandate
An auctioneer whose authority is to attach a house does not have authority to take the contents of the house. Where loss of contents occurs outside the auctioneer's mandate, the auctioneer is personally answerable and the aggrieved party has a distinct cause of action in conversion or tort against the auctioneer, not against the decree holder.
Civil Procedure — Attachment — Release from Attachment — Order 19 Rules 56 and 57 CPR
The remedy under Order 19 rule 57 of the Civil Procedure Rules for release of property from attachment is only available where the property has been attached in execution of a court decree and is still under attachment at the time of the application.
Civil Procedure — Attachment — Sale by Proprietor During Execution — Effect on Attachment
Where the registered proprietor of land sells the property after court grants bailiffs powers of sale but before execution, and the bailiffs return their warrant unexecuted, the property is not under attachment at the time of a subsequent application filed after the sale.

Legislation cited (2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nassuna v Britania Products (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 323 of 2002) [2002] UGCommC 28 (30 September 2002)
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.