Sande v Don (U) Limited & Another (Civil Appeal 62 of 2020)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

Held that filing a separate suit in the Chief Magistrates Court to challenge execution proceedings from a High Court case was an abuse of court process. Section 34(1) of the Civil Procedure Act requires that all issues concerning execution of a High Court warrant must be handled by that court, not by way of a separate trial in a lower court. The trial magistrate correctly dismissed the suit, and the High Court found no basis to interfere with that decision.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed and lower court decision upholding dismissal of suit affirmed

Facts

The appellant filed suit in the Chief Magistrates Court against the respondents seeking UGX 11,100,000 in damages for loss of property including lumbering machines, laptop, documents and household items. The appellant alleged that on 19 October 2016, while he was in Ntungamo, the 2nd respondent headed to his premises in Nansana and threw out his properties. The appellant claimed the 2nd respondent was executing orders under the direction of Lumu Fred, an alleged agent of the 1st respondent. The execution related to a judgment in High Court Civil Suit No. 457 of 2012. The appellant's landlord had successfully challenged the attachment of the premises through objector proceedings in Misc. Application No. 2317 of 2016. The trial magistrate dismissed the suit with costs.

Issues

1. Whether the 1st Respondent was vicariously liable for the actions of its alleged agent.
2. Whether the learned Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Decision and orders of the lower court upheld.
• Costs of the appeal awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Civil Procedure Act s.34(1)
• Judicature Act s.46(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.7

Cases cited (4)

• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2007)
• Maria Anyango Ochola & 2 Others v Hannington Wasswa & Another (Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1985)
• Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v EADB (Court of Appeal No. 33 of 1993)
• Fr. Narsensio Begumisa & 3 Others v Eric Kibenaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)

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.

• The Elma Philanthropies (E.A) Ltd v URA (Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 2021)

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