Wakilii

Ssengendo and Anor v Pio Crypto Centre Investment Ltd and Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 345 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 15 · 2022 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for warrant of arrest and attachment of property before judgment arising from civil suit for breach of contract and fraud
Decision
Warrant of arrest granted against second respondent; attachment before judgment refused for non-compliance with procedural requirements

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

Court granted warrant of arrest against second respondent who absconded jurisdiction and evaded service, applying Civil Procedure Act section 64 and Order 40 Rule 1. Court refused attachment of property before judgment under Order 40 Rule 5 because applicants failed to specify estimated value of properties sought to be attached, a mandatory requirement. Costs to abide outcome of main suit.

Outcome

Warrant of arrest granted against second respondent; attachment before judgment refused for non-compliance with procedural requirements

Facts

Applicants, a husband and wife, invested UGX 175 million with the first respondent company for online forex trading based on promises by the second respondent of 10% weekly returns for 48 weeks. First applicant invested UGX 100 million expecting UGX 480 million return but received nothing. Second applicant invested UGX 75 million expecting UGX 360 million but received only UGX 49 million. First respondent unofficially closed business. Second respondent, the sole signatory to first respondent's bank accounts and majority shareholder, fled Kampala upon learning of legal action and was last located in Kisoro. Respondents attempted to coerce applicants to transfer contracts to a SACCO. Criminal charges were filed by applicants and 33 others for obtaining money under false pretenses and money laundering. Respondents failed to respond to application despite extensions and substituted service.

Issues

  1. Whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the 2nd Respondent to be brought before the court to show cause why he should not furnish security for his appearance.
  2. Whether the court should order for the attachment of the 1st and 2nd Respondents' properties before judgment.
  3. Whether the Applicants are entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • A warrant of arrest is hereby issued against the 2nd Respondent to show cause why he should not furnish security for his appearance.
  • Costs shall abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Warrant of Arrest — Grounds for Issuance — Defendant Absconding Jurisdiction
A warrant of arrest under Civil Procedure Act section 64(a) and Order 40 Rule 1 may be issued where the court is satisfied by affidavit that the defendant has absconded or left the jurisdiction with intent to delay the plaintiff or avoid court process, and where the defendant's conduct demonstrates evasive character including continuous failure to be served and residing outside the jurisdiction in hiding.
Civil Procedure — Warrant of Arrest — Uncontroverted Evidence — Effect
Where a defendant fails to file a reply to an application for warrant of arrest despite being granted extensions and served by substituted service, the evidence in the applicant's affidavit in support stands uncontroverted and is taken as true.
Civil Procedure — Attachment Before Judgment — Mandatory Requirements — Specification of Value
Order 40 Rule 5(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules mandatorily requires that a plaintiff seeking attachment before judgment must specify the property to be attached and its estimated value to enable the court to satisfy itself that the property can sufficiently satisfy the claim and to prevent attachment of property whose value exceeds the claim; failure to comply with this requirement renders the application for attachment defective.
Civil Procedure — Warrant of Arrest — Standard of Consideration — Personal Liberty
A warrant of arrest under Order 40 Rule 1 must be made after careful consideration because the repercussions under Civil Procedure Act section 64(a) include that failure to furnish security could lead to infringement of the defendant's personal liberty.
Civil Procedure — Attachment Before Judgment — Evidence of Ownership — Sufficiency
A document purporting to show transactions by a defendant in respect of motor vehicles in the Uganda Revenue Authority database without indication of URA authorship does not conclusively prove ownership of those vehicles and is insufficient evidence for purposes of attachment before judgment.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (1)

  • Juliet Nabagala (Executrix of the estate of the late Scholastic Nanteza) v Tereza Mbiro (Misc. Cause No. 82 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssengendo and Anor v Pio Crypto Centre Investment Ltd and Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 345 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 15 (12 April 2022)
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.