Uganda Corporation Creameries Limited and Another v Reamator Limited (Miscellaneous Application 48 of 1998)

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 Section 47(2) of the Judicature Statute No. 13 of 1996 permits any order or judgment of the Court of Appeal to be executed and enforced as if it were an order of the High Court. The Registrar of the Court of Appeal has powers under this section to issue warrant in execution. The absence of execution process rules in the Court of Appeal Rules does not affect this power conferred by statute. The warrant of attachment issued by the Registrar on 28 October 1998 was properly issued and not an abuse of court process. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The High Court had entered judgment against Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd for payment of US$365,000 on 29 July 1997. The applicants filed a Notice of Appeal which was subsequently struck out by the Court of Appeal because counsel failed to retain proof of service as required by rule 82(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules. Following the striking out, the respondent filed Bills of Costs that were taxed and allowed at UGX 17,567,600. To recover these costs, counsel for the respondent applied to the Court of Appeal for a warrant of execution. The Registrar issued a warrant of attachment on 28 October 1998 under which two motor vehicles were attached: a Mercedes Benz belonging to the first applicant and a Toyota Select Saloon allegedly belonging to a third party named Telemwa Michael. The applicants challenged the Registrar's power to issue the warrant and argued the attachment was an abuse of process.

Issues

1. Whether Section 47(2) of the Judicature Statute No. 13 of 1996 gives power to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal to issue warrant in execution of a decree of the Court of Appeal.
2. Whether a warrant of attachment issued by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal on 28 October 1998 exists to be set aside and whether the issuance was an abuse of court process.
3. Whether the principle of approbation and reprobation applies to the facts of this case.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Judicature Statute No. 13 of 1996 s.47(2)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 65 s.29
• Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 r.1(3)
• Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 r.42
• Court of Appeal Rules r.82(3)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.19 r.55

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Bizibu v Nalwoga (Civil Appeal No.26 of 2005)
• Bizibu Charles v Nalwoga Juliet (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2005)

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