Nyakato Josephine v Ecumenical Church Loan Fund Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 381 of 2008)
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 objector who produces a sale agreement showing she purchased property in her own name, takes possession, collects rent from tenants, and whose possession is not rebutted by credible contrary evidence satisfies the requirements of Order 22 rules 56-58 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The burden lies on the execution creditor to prove the objector held property in trust for the judgment debtor. The fact that the objector has children with the judgment debtor does not establish that property registered in her name belongs to him.
Outcome
Property released from attachment and restored to the Applicant
Facts
The Respondent obtained a consent judgment against four defendants including Byarugaba Benjamin for recovery of Shs 90,875,000 with interest. A warrant of attachment was issued on 30 June 2008 targeting, among other properties, a residential house in Kijura North, Masindi. On 17 July 2008 the Applicant found the warrant affixed to her door. She filed an objector application on 22 July 2008. The Applicant claimed she purchased the house on 12 April 2006 from Binangaijo Apuuli for Shs 5,500,000, took possession, and has collected rent from tenants. She admitted she has two children with the judgment debtor and that he used to stay with her but denied they were married or that he contributed to acquiring the property. The Respondent, through a bailiff's affidavit, claimed the judgment debtor was the landlord and that the Applicant was his wife. The Applicant produced the sale agreement, receipt book showing rent collection, and testified she occupied part of the house while renting out the remainder.
Issues
- Whether the application was filed without designedly delay as required by Order 22 rule 55(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Whether the Applicant had an interest in the attached property at the date of attachment.
- Whether the Applicant was in possession of the property at the time of attachment and held it on her own account or in trust for the judgment debtor.
Orders
- Application allowed.
- The residential house located in Kijura North LCI Masindi is removed from attachment.
- Costs of the application awarded to the Applicant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 22 rules 55
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 22 rule 56
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 22 rule 57
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 22 rule 58
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 1
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 2
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 3
- Evidence Act s.101
- Evidence Act s.102
- Evidence Act s.103
Cases cited (4)
- David Muhenda & Others v Margaret Kamuje (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1999)
- Herilal & Co v Buganda Industries Ltd (1960) EA 318
- Betty Namugenyi v Daisen Co Ltd & Anor and Forward International Co Ltd (Objector) (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 522 of 2005)
- Richard Sendaula v Haji Ali Lubega & May Senyonyi (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 85 of 2004)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.