Wakilii

Nelson.G.Wambuzi v Busoga Growers Co-op Union Ltd (Misc.App.No. 913 of 2000)

High Court · [2001] UGHC 103 · 2001 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Objection application for release of attached machinery arising from civil suit HCCS No. 01 of 1999
Decision
Machinery ordered released from attachment to the objector

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 High Court allowed the objector's application for release of attached machinery. Held that at the time of attachment the machinery was in the objector's possession on its own account, not in trust for the judgment debtor. The sole question in objection proceedings is possession, not legal title. The court also ruled that an affidavit bearing only a photocopy of the deponent's signature is invalid.

Outcome

Machinery ordered released from attachment to the objector

Facts

Nelson G. Wambuzi obtained judgment against Busoga Growers Co-op Union Ltd in HCCS No. 01 of 1999. A warrant of attachment dated 18 April 2000 was issued to attach the judgment debtor's property. Certain printing and cutting machinery in the possession of Bentovic Printers, Stationers & Publishers Co. Ltd was attached and sold on 26 May 2000. Bentovic claimed it had purchased the machinery from the judgment debtor and filed an objection application under Order 19 rule 55 seeking release of the machinery. The respondent contended that Bentovic's possession was unlawful and that no payment had been made. A second warrant dated 27 June 2000 was issued to enable the auctioneer to remove the machinery from Bentovic. The respondent also challenged the validity of Bentovic's affidavit, which bore only a photocopied signature of the deponent.

Issues

  1. Whether the objector was entitled to release of the attached printing/cutting machinery under Order 19 rule 55 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the objector held possession of the machinery for himself or in trust for the judgment debtor.
  3. Whether an affidavit with a photocopied signature of the deponent is valid.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Costs awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Objection to Attachment — Test for Release of Attached Property
In objection proceedings under Order 19 rule 55 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the sole question to be investigated is one of possession. Questions of legal right and title are not relevant except insofar as they affect the decision as to whether the possession is on account of or in trust for the judgment debtor or some other person.
Civil Procedure — Objection to Attachment — Possession on Own Account
Where an objector holds possession of attached property on its own account and not in trust for the judgment debtor, the objector is entitled to release of the property regardless of how the objector came to possess it or whether the judgment debtor lost title to it.
Evidence — Affidavits — Validity of Photocopied Signature
An affidavit bearing only a photocopy of the deponent's signature is invalid and cannot be treated as proper evidence. It is not possible to commission an affidavit which is photocopy signed. An affidavit is a serious matter of evidence, not merely a procedural question.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (5)

  • Chotabhai M. Patel v C.M. Patel & Another (1958) EA 743
  • N.E. Kiwalabye v U.C.B. & Another (1994) IV KLR 8
  • Brooke Bond Lieberg Tanzania Ltd v Mariam (1975) EA 266
  • Serungoma v Dev. Transport (1980) HCB 12
  • Edmond Khakale v Benyamini Wadali (1976) HCB 29

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nelson.G.Wambuzi v Busoga Growers Co-op Union Ltd (Misc.App.No. 913 of 2000) [2001] UGHC 103 (15 January 2001)
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.