Wakilii

Sohanpal v Universal Industries Limited (Civil Suit No.. 1676 of 1953)

East African Court of Appeal · [1954] EACA 7 · 1954 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex parte chambers summons by decree-holder seeking order to authorize court broker to break lock on judgment debtor's store to levy execution
Decision
Application dismissed as redundant; court broker confirmed to have existing authority to break lock without additional order

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

A court broker holding an attachment order has a duty to levy execution on movable property, including breaking locks on commercial premises such as stores and warehouses, without requiring additional court authorization. Section 45 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance restricts the breaking of locks only on dwelling-houses, not on commercial premises. A decree-holder who brings a redundant application for authority that already exists in law must bear his own costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed as redundant; court broker confirmed to have existing authority to break lock without additional order

Facts

The court delivered an attachment order on movable property to the court broker for execution. When the court broker arrived at the judgment debtor's store, he found the door locked. The court broker refused to break the lock, believing he required additional authorization from the court. The decree-holder then applied by chambers summons for an order authorizing the court broker to break the lock. The decree-holder's advocate admitted the application was redundant but stated it was brought because of the court broker's refusal to perform his duty.

Issues

  1. Whether a court broker holding an attachment order on movable property has authority to break open a locked store without additional authorization from the court.
  2. Whether section 45 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance restricts a court broker's power to break locks on premises other than dwelling-houses.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Decree-holder to pay his own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Execution of Decrees — Powers of Court Broker — Breaking of Locks
A court broker holding an attachment order on movable property has a duty to levy execution forthwith, including breaking locks on premises where necessary, without requiring additional authorization from the court.
Civil Procedure — Execution of Decrees — Protection of Dwelling-Houses — Section 45 Civil Procedure Ordinance
Section 45 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance, which restricts the breaking of locks and entry to premises, applies only to dwelling-houses and does not restrict a court broker's power to break locks on commercial premises such as stores, warehouses, or workshops.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Redundant Applications
Where a decree-holder brings an application which on his own showing is redundant, seeking authorization for action that is already lawful, he must bear his own costs even if the application was brought in response to an officer's misconceived refusal to act.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Civil Procedure Ordinance s.45

Cases cited (3)

  • Semayne's Case (1604) 77 ER 194
  • Hodder v Williams [1895] 2 QB 663
  • Brown v Glenn (1854) 16 QB 254

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sohanpal v Universal Industries Limited (Civil Suit No.. 1676 of 1953) [1954] EACA 7 (1 January 1954)
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.