Pentecostal Assemblies of God Ltd v Transsahara International (U) Ltd and Another (Civil Appeal 10 of 2010)
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 Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that UNAFRI had capacity to sue and be sued: its constitutive inter-governmental Statute and the hosting agreement conferred body-corporate status, and the Statute was not a treaty relating to armistice, neutrality or peace (nor one requiring a constitutional amendment), so it needed no parliamentary ratification under article 76 of the 1967 Constitution, article 123 of the 1995 Constitution or section 2 of the Ratification of Treaties Act. On execution, although the judgment debtor was in possession when the warrant issued, the warrant was never properly executed — no 14-day notice of sale was given and no attempt was made to renew it — so the objector's release of the park yard was rightly upheld.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; the release of the park yard from attachment was upheld and the appellant ordered to pay UNAFRI's costs throughout
Facts
UNAFRI leased a parking yard to Transsahara International (U) Ltd for five years from October 2003. In 2004 the appellant paid Transsahara UGX 40,000,000 for a vehicle that was never delivered, sued in High Court Civil Suit No. 711 of 2004, and obtained a consent judgment for UGX 44,000,000 payable by installments with 11% interest on default. Transsahara defaulted, and the appellant obtained a warrant to attach and sell Transsahara's unregistered leasehold interest in the yard. Before the warrant issued, UNAFRI had written to Transsahara threatening to terminate the lease for rent arrears. UNAFRI then filed an objector application to release the yard, contending the lease had been terminated and the property was not Transsahara's. The High Court released the yard and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision, prompting this second appeal.
Issues
- Whether UNAFRI, an inter-governmental organisation whose constitutive Statute was never ratified by Parliament, had legal capacity to sue and be sued in Uganda.
- Whether the judgment debtor's unregistered lease interest in the park yard was successfully attached, given the failure to give the required notice of sale and to renew the warrant of attachment.
- Whether the Court of Appeal failed to properly re-evaluate the evidence on record and thereby reached a wrong decision.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Costs of the appeal awarded to UNAFRI (the second respondent/objector) in the Supreme Court and in the two courts below.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
Cases cited (4)
- Joseph Mulenga v FIBA (U) (Miscellaneous Application No. 308 of 1996)
- Charles Kassaja v Registrar of Titles (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 51 of 1993)
- Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
- Pandya v R (1957) E.A. 336
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.