Wakilii

Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd and Another v Reamator Limited (Misc. Civil Application No. 48 of 1998)

Court of Appeal · [1999] UGCA 86 · 1999 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside a warrant of attachment of movable property issued by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal in execution of a costs award.
Decision
Application to set aside the warrant of attachment dismissed with 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 held that section 47(2) of the Judicature Statute No. 13 of 1996 permits any order or judgment of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal to be executed and enforced as if it were an order of the High Court, and contains nothing limiting the Registrar's power to issue a warrant in execution. There was no need to import section 29 of the Civil Procedure Act. The absence of execution rules in the Court of Appeal Rules does not affect the power conferred by section 47(2). The Registrar therefore properly issued the warrant of attachment, which did not amount to an abuse of court process. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application to set aside the warrant of attachment dismissed with costs

Facts

On 29 July 1997 the High Court entered judgment against the applicants for payment of USD 365,000. The applicants filed a Notice of Appeal and applied for proceedings, but the Notice and subsequent appeal were struck out by the Court of Appeal because counsel failed to retain proof of service of the letter requesting proceedings as required by rule 82(3). The respondent then filed a bill of costs, taxed and allowed at UGX 17,567,600. To realise these costs, the respondent applied to the Court of Appeal for a warrant of execution, which the Registrar granted, issuing a warrant of attachment of movable property on 28 October 1998. Two motor vehicles were attached: the first applicant's Mercedes Benz and a Toyota Select Saloon allegedly owned by a friend, Telemwa Michael, rather than the applicant. The applicants applied to set aside the warrant, contending the Registrar lacked power to issue it.

Issues

  1. Whether section 47(2) of the Judicature Statute No. 13 of 1996 empowers the Registrar of the Court of Appeal to issue a warrant in execution of a decree of the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether the warrant of attachment issued by the Registrar on 28/10/1998 exists to be set aside and whether its issuance was an abuse of court process.
  3. Whether the principle of approbation and reprobation applies to the facts of the case.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Execution — Power of Registrar of Court of Appeal to Issue Warrant of Attachment — Judicature Statute s.47(2)
Section 47(2) of the Judicature Statute No. 13 of 1996 permits any order or judgment of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal to be executed and enforced as if it were an order or judgment of the High Court, and confers on the Registrar of the Court of Appeal power to issue a warrant in execution of the court's decree.
Construction of Enabling Provisions — Limits on Powers Not to Be Implied
Where a statutory provision is clear and contains nothing limiting an officer's power, a limitation will not be read into it; had the legislature intended to limit the Registrar's power to issue a warrant in execution, it would have expressly done so, and there is no need to import section 29 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Execution — Effect of Absence of Execution Rules in Court of Appeal Rules
The absence of rules governing the execution process in the Court of Appeal Rules does not affect or remove the power to execute conferred by section 47(2) of the Judicature Statute, and a warrant of attachment validly issued under that section is not an abuse of court process.

Legislation cited (6)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd and Another v Reamator Limited (Misc. Civil Application No. 48 of 1998) [1999] UGCA 86 (5 March 1999)
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.