Wakilii

Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust v Kidega Lakititus (CIVIL APPEALS NOs. 899, 901,902, 903, 904 and 905 Of 1998)

High Court · [1998] UGHC 37 · 1998 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated appeals from orders of the District Registrar at Lira directing the Appellant to pay taxed costs to a court bailiff.
Decision
Appeals dismissed as time-barred, but underlying orders of the District Registrar nullified as illegal.

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

Appeals dismissed as time-barred. Time began to run from 26 June 1998 when the District Registrar delivered his ruling, not from 28 August 1998 when the order was signed. The appeals were filed on 2 September 1998, outside the prescribed seven-day period. However, the court nullified the District Registrar's orders issuing warrants of attachment as illegal, since there was no decree between the court bailiff and judgment creditor to support such enforcement.

Outcome

Appeals dismissed as time-barred, but underlying orders of the District Registrar nullified as illegal.

Facts

Uganda Commercial Bank (UCB) obtained execution decrees against various loan defaulters in suits at Lira. The bank instructed the respondent court bailiff to levy execution. The bailiff drew bills of costs which the District Registrar duly taxed. In the meantime, the UCB loans were categorised as non-performing assets and transferred to the appellant Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust under the NPART Statute 1994. The respondent bailiff sought to recover his taxed costs from the appellant. On 12 June 1998, parties appeared before the District Registrar on whether execution should issue. On 26 June 1998, the Registrar ruled that execution should issue against the appellant. The Registrar dated the extracted orders 28 August 1998. The appellant filed appeals on 2 September 1998 seeking to set aside those orders.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal was time-barred.
  2. Whether the appeal was properly brought under Order 46 rr. 4, 6 and 8 and Order 48 r.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. Whether the appeal is competent as the grounds of appeal are not contained in the notice of motion.
  4. Whether upon a stay of execution a court bailiff is entitled to enforce by attachment and sale payment of his taxed fees against the judgement creditor without first obtaining a court decree.
  5. Whether the appellant ordered a stay of the execution.

Orders

  • The appeals are time-barred and are hereby dismissed.
  • The orders of the District Registrar issuing warrants of attachment are hereby nullified.
  • Each party to bear his own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Date from which Time Begins to Run
Once a judgment or ruling is delivered, time begins to run from the date of the decision and not the date on which a written copy thereof is furnished or signed.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Duty to Extract Orders Promptly
It is the duty of an intending appellant to obtain a copy of the order to be appealed against and to take the necessary steps to file the appeal within the prescribed time. An appellant cannot rely on section 80(2) of the Civil Procedure Act to extend the time period in the absence of evidence of steps taken to obtain the orders.
Civil Procedure — Enforcement — Bailiff's Fees — Requirement of Decree
In the absence of a suit between the court bailiff and the judgment creditor for payment of bailiff's taxed costs under Rule 13(4) of the Court Bailiffs Rules 1981, there is no decree to enforce by way of attachment and sale. A District Registrar is wrong to issue warrants of attachment in such circumstances.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers — Nullification of Illegal Orders
The court has inherent power to prevent injustice or abuse of legal process by nullifying orders that are illegal, even where an appeal is dismissed on other grounds.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (3)

  • Kemisa Senya v M/s Tanmohammed Jaffer Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1997)
  • Sheika v Nahim [1959] EA 500
  • BG Saint v Kevin Hogan (1953) 20 EACA 81

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust v Kidega Lakititus (CIVIL APPEALS NOs. 899, 901,902, 903, 904 and 905 Of 1998) [1998] UGHC 37 (24 May 1998)
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.