Wakilii

Peter Mulira (t/a Peter Mulira & Co. Advocates (CIVIL SUIT NO.1136 OF 1999 ) (CIVIL SUIT NO.1136 of 1999)

High Court · [2003] UGHC 42 · 2003 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Statutory suit under Order 19 rule 60 of the Civil Procedure Rules to establish claim for attachment of properties following objector proceedings that released properties from attachment
Decision
Suit dismissed; plaintiff denied attachment of properties

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 suit properties registered in the name of Lake Victoria Bottling Company (LVBC) were not attachable in execution of a decree against LVBC for unpaid professional fees because title had vested in the Government of Uganda by operation of the Properties and Businesses (Acquisition) Decree 1975 and remained vested under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982. The certificates of title in LVBC's name were rendered valueless by the statutory vesting provisions. Further, LVBC had no liability to the plaintiff because the persons who appointed the plaintiff as company lawyer in 1992 were not directors of LVBC at that time.

Outcome

Suit dismissed; plaintiff denied attachment of properties

Facts

The plaintiff, an advocate, was appointed by two persons claiming to be directors of LVBC in 1992 to pursue repossession of the company's properties from government after the company had been acquired under the Properties and Businesses (Acquisition) Decree 1975. The plaintiff rendered legal services but was only partially paid. He obtained a decree against LVBC for unpaid fees of UGX 189,000,000 in Civil Suit No. 608 of 1997. During execution, he attached three properties registered in LVBC's name. Crown Bottlers Ltd, which had purchased LVBC's business and assets from government in 1993, filed objector proceedings and the properties were released from attachment. The plaintiff then instituted this statutory suit under Order 19 rule 60 seeking to establish his claim for attachment. The defendant argued the properties were not attachable because title had vested in government by statute and LVBC had no liability to the plaintiff because the persons who appointed him were not legally recognized directors.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to bring this suit.
  2. Whether the plaintiff ought to have filed an appeal against the ruling of this court dated 17th October 1997 instead of this suit.
  3. Whether the plaintiff's suit is maintainable against the defendant in light of the agreement dated 17th October 1996.
  4. Whether the suit properties comprised in block 244 plots are liable to attachment in execution of the decree in HCCS No. 608 of 1997.
  5. Whether the agreement of sale dated February 1993 was capable of vesting the suit properties in the defendant.
  6. Whether LVBC ceased to exist as alleged in paragraph 5(e) of the defence.
  7. Whether it was a legal requirement for the Minister of Finance to issue a statutory order before the sale of the properties of LVBC could be effected.
  8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the orders which he seeks in the plaint.

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed.
  • Costs to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Statutory Vesting — Effect of Properties and Businesses (Acquisition) Decree 1975 on Registered Title
Where a company and its properties are acquired under section 1(1) of the Properties and Businesses (Acquisition) Decree 1975, title to properties registered in the company's name vests in the Government by operation of law without need for further assurance or registration, rendering the existing certificates of title valueless until a certificate of repossession is issued under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982.
Registration of Titles Act — Application of Section 56 to Statutory Vesting
Section 56 of the Registration of Titles Act, which provides that a certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership, does not apply where specific statutory provisions have vested title in a different person by operation of law, notwithstanding that the certificate remains registered in the original owner's name.
Directors — Authority to Bind Company After Statutory Acquisition
Where a company has been acquired by government under the Properties and Businesses (Acquisition) Decree 1975, the shareholding and directorship of former shareholders and directors ceases upon the coming into force of the Decree, and resolutions passed by former directors after acquisition do not bind the company.
Attachment — Properties Liable to Attachment in Execution
Properties cannot be attached in execution of a decree against a judgment debtor where title to those properties does not vest in the judgment debtor but has vested in a third party by operation of statute.
Statutory Suits — Order 19 Rule 60 as Proper Remedy After Release from Attachment
Order 19 rule 60 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides for the institution of a statutory suit to establish a claim for attachment after properties have been released following objector proceedings; it does not provide for an appeal against the order releasing the property.
Privity of Contract — Standing to Challenge Validity
A person who is not a party or privy to a contract has no locus standi to challenge its validity.
Illegality — Court's Duty to Decline to Condone
Following Makula International v Cardinal Nsubuga, a court cannot condone an illegality once it has been brought to its attention; imposing liability upon a person on whom it does not lie would amount to an illegality which the court must not condone.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (5)

  • Odd Jobs v Mubia (1970) EA 476
  • Tasker v Small (1834) 3 M & C 70
  • John Katwiremu v William Katarikawe & Others (1977) HCB 187
  • W Patel v Chaturbhai M Patel & Another (1958) EA 743
  • Makula International v Cardinal Nsubuga & Another (1982) HCB 11

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Peter Mulira (t_a Peter Mulira & Co. Advocates (CIVIL SUIT NO.1136 OF 1999 ) (CIVIL SUIT NO.1136 of 1999) [2003] UGHC 42 (28 February 2003)
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.