Wakilii

Okwir v Okwir & Another (Miscellaneous Application 101 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 1077 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Objection to attachment of property in execution of decree arising from Civil Suit No. 28 of 2022
Decision
Application dismissed with costs. Process of sale of attached property to continue.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 the objector failed to prove that the attached maize milling machine was not in the possession of the judgment debtor at the date of attachment. The court found that the machine was acquired by the objector on behalf of Ogini Farmers Cooperative Society of which he was a key member. Application dismissed with costs to the judgment creditor.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs. Process of sale of attached property to continue.

Facts

The judgment creditor Okwir Morrish obtained judgment against Ogini Farmers Cooperative Society Limited in Civil Suit No. 28 of 2022 for UGX 120,000,000 being part payment for maize grains supplied. In execution of the decree, a court bailiff attached a 30T/24H maize milling machine on 26 October 2023. The objector Okwir Samuel filed an application seeking release of the machine claiming it was his property. He provided documents showing he had purchased and imported the machine from China in his name and that he operated a business from rented premises since August 2021. The judgment creditor opposed the application showing that the machine was found at premises bearing a sign post for Ogini Grain Millers, that bags of maize flour branded with the cooperative's name were at the premises, and that the objector was a key member of the cooperative society being number one on the membership list and a signatory to the cooperative's bank account.

Issues

  1. Whether the maize milling machine ought to be released from attachment on grounds that it belonged to the objector and not the judgment debtor.
  2. Whether the judgment debtor was in possession of the attached machine at the date of attachment.
  3. Whether provision should be made for costs of the application.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the judgment creditor Mr. Okwir Morrish to be paid by the applicant/objector Mr. Okwir Samuel.
  • No costs awarded to the judgment debtor.
  • Process of sale of the 30T/24H Maize Milling Machine/Roller Mill to continue without further delay unless the decretal sum is fully paid.
  • Interim and substantive stay orders issued by the Assistant Registrar pending determination of the objection application lapsed.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Execution of Decrees — Objection to Attachment — Burden on Objector
Under Order 22 rule 56 of the Civil Procedure Rules, an objector claiming that attached property is not liable to attachment must adduce evidence to show that at the date of attachment he had some interest in the property attached.
Civil Procedure — Execution of Decrees — Objection to Attachment — Grounds for Release
Under Order 22 rule 57 of the Civil Procedure Rules, property attached in execution shall be released if the court is satisfied that at the time of attachment the property was not in the possession of the judgment debtor or was in the judgment debtor's possession not on his own account but on account of or in trust for some other person.
Civil Procedure — Execution of Decrees — Objection Proceedings — Test of Possession
In objection proceedings, the sole question to be investigated is one of possession of and some interest in the property. Questions of legal right and title are not relevant except insofar as they may 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 — Execution of Decrees — Possession — Context-Dependent Meaning
The term 'possession' in the context of objector proceedings denotes actual control of property combined with the intention to use it. It is a question of fact and does not require proof of ownership. The meaning of possession depends on the context in which it is used.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (11)

  • Re Overseas Aviation Engineering (GB) Ltd [1962] 3 All ER 12
  • Lamu Pharma Limited v Davimed Pharma Limited and Wakiso Pharmacy Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1332 of 2024)
  • Chotabhai M Patel v Chatrabhai Patel and Another [1958] EA 743
  • Sokempex Interstate Co. Ltd v Eurafro General Import and Export Co. Ltd [1981] HCB 75
  • Uganda Mineral Waters Ltd v Amin Piran and Kampala Minerals Ltd (1994-95) HCB 87
  • Harilal & Co. v Buganda Industries Ltd [1960] 1 EA 318
  • David Muhenda and 3 Others v Margaret Kamuje (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1999)
  • Blakeman v Associated Hotel Management Services Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 45 of 1984)
  • Bank View Mill Ltd and Others v Nelson Corporation and Feyer & Co. (Nelson) Ltd (1942) 2 All ER 476
  • United States of America and Republic of France v Dulfus Mieg et Compagnie SA and Bank of England (1952) 1 All ER 572
  • Towers & Co. Ltd v Gray (1961) 2 All ER 68

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Okwir v Okwir & Another (Miscellaneous Application 101 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 1077 (27 November 2024)
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.