Wakilii

Trade Impex Ltd v Sserunkuma & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2006)

Court of Appeal · [2012] UGCA 32 · 2012 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a judgment of the High Court (Commercial Division) in a suit against receivers for accountability, refund of legal fees and disputed interest.
Decision
Appeal dismissed; each party to bear its own costs.

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 Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by a mortgagor company against receivers. It held that the proper remedy against an allegedly excessive taxed bill of costs was appeal or review, not a fresh suit, so the fees refund claim failed. It found the interest on the sale proceeds ran from the date of transfer of the mortgaged property, not the date of the sale agreement, and that the interest claim was not proved. Although a suspicious unexplained debit of ECU 46,911.16 appeared on a ledger, that ledger was annexed to a report by an unqualified person which had been abandoned, so the trial judge could not be faulted for declining the claim. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; each party to bear its own costs.

Facts

Between 1989 and 1991 the appellant company obtained a loan of ECU 255,000 (about US$300,000) from Development Finance Company of Uganda Ltd (DFCU), secured by a mortgage over its property and a debenture over its assets. On default, DFCU appointed the respondents as joint receivers. The receivers sold the company's assets, including the mortgaged property, which fetched US$670,000. After deducting the loan and expenses, only US$24,414.19 was paid to the appellant. The appellant disputed the receivers' accountability and sued, claiming a refund of legal fees, correctly computed interest on the sale proceeds, and an explanation of a debit of ECU 46,911.16. The High Court (Commercial Division) awarded the appellant Shs 5 million general damages with interest and costs, but rejected the other claims, finding the security-for-costs bill properly taxed and the interest and debit claims unproven. The appellant appealed against the rejected claims.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant could claim a refund of legal fees expended on the basis of a sum mentioned in an order requiring the furnishing of security for costs.
  2. Whether the trial judge erred in not making findings on allegedly wrongly computed interest arising out of the sale of the mortgaged property.
  3. Whether the trial judge erred in not making a finding on a figure of ECU 46,911.16 (US$ 56,997.72) allegedly illegally debited to the appellant's account.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs here and in the court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxed Bill of Costs — Proper Remedy Against Alleged Excessive Fees
Where a party considers a taxed bill of costs excessive, the proper remedy is appeal or review under the Civil Procedure Act, not the institution of a fresh suit against an order passed by the same court.
Receivership — Receiver's Duty to Account to the Company
A receiver appointed under a debenture is an agent of the company and owes a duty to account to it for all money received and paid, including interest accrued on the sale of property placed under receivership.
Mortgage — Interest on Sale Proceeds — Date from which Interest Runs
Interest on the balance due from the sale of mortgaged property runs from the date the transfer of the property is effected, not from the date of execution of the sale agreement, where the transfer was delayed by court proceedings.
Proof — Reliance on Report by Unqualified Person — Consequences of Abandonment
A claim founded on documentary evidence annexed to a report prepared by an unqualified person, which has been rejected and abandoned, cannot succeed, and a trial judge cannot be faulted for declining to award it even where the underlying item appears suspicious.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (4)

  • Muwonge Vs Musah [2004]2 EA 187
  • Gomba Holdings (UK) Ltd Vs Homan [1986]3 ALL ER 94
  • Uganda Commercial Bank Vs Kigozi [2002] EA 305
  • Frank Makumbi Vs Kigezi African Bus Co. Ltd. [1986] HCB 69

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Trade Impex Ltd v Sserunkuma & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2006) [2012] UGCA 32 (19 November 2012)
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.