Wakilii

Vivo Energy Uganda Limited v C & A Tours & Travel Operators Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2501 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 350 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to vacate garnishee order nisi issued in execution proceedings arising from Civil Suit No. 0055 of 2023
Decision
Application to vacate garnishee order nisi dismissed; garnishee proceedings to continue with correction of decretal sum computation

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 judgment creditor cannot appeal parts of a decree while simultaneously seeking to execute other parts — the doctrine of approbation and reprobation prevents inconsistent positions. However, the cross-appeal does not constitute grounds for vacating the garnishee order nisi; rather, it may be a ground for declining to make the order absolute unless the cross-appeal is withdrawn. Order 23 of The Civil Procedure Rules is self-contained and does not require a notice to show cause under Order 22 rule 19 to issue before granting a garnishee order nisi. Computational errors in the decretal amount are correctable under the slip rule and do not warrant setting aside the order nisi.

Outcome

Application to vacate garnishee order nisi dismissed; garnishee proceedings to continue with correction of decretal sum computation

Facts

The respondent obtained judgment against the applicant in 2020 arising from breach of retailer dealership agreements. The applicant appealed the entire judgment in October 2020. The respondent filed a notice of cross-appeal in November 2020 seeking enhancement of damages awarded. Both appeal and cross-appeal remain pending. The applicant's application for stay of execution was dismissed. In October 2024, the respondent obtained a garnishee order nisi against the applicant's bank account. The applicant applied to vacate the order nisi on grounds that (i) the respondent failed to serve a notice to show cause under Order 22 rule 19, and (ii) the decretal sum in the order nisi was incorrectly calculated. The respondent conceded the computational error but opposed vacating the order.

Issues

  1. Whether a judgment debtor who has filed a cross-appeal against parts of a decree can simultaneously execute other parts of the same decree.
  2. Whether a notice to show cause under Order 22 rule 19 of The Civil Procedure Rules is required before issuing a garnishee order nisi under Order 23.
  3. Whether a garnishee order nisi should be set aside due to computational errors in the decretal sum stated in the order.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Execution — Indivisibility of Decrees — Doctrine of Approbation and Reprobation
A decree is one and indivisible and must be executed as a whole, not split into parts. A party cannot appeal parts of a decree while simultaneously seeking to enforce other parts. The doctrine of approbation and reprobation prevents a party from taking inconsistent positions by approving one part of a decree for execution while challenging another part on appeal.
Execution — Garnishee Proceedings — Effect of Cross-Appeal on Execution
A notice of cross-appeal under rule 91 of The Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions constitutes a valid appeal in its own right. The existence of a cross-appeal challenging parts of a decree does not constitute grounds for vacating a garnishee order nisi already issued, but may form a ground for declining to make the order absolute unless the cross-appeal is withdrawn before the return date.
Execution — Garnishee Proceedings — Notice to Show Cause Not Required
Order 23 of The Civil Procedure Rules is a self-contained process prescribing its own procedures for garnishee proceedings. There is no provision under Order 23 requiring a notice to show cause under Order 22 rule 19 to issue before a garnishee order nisi is granted. The notice to show cause requirement applies to other modes of execution but not to garnishee proceedings, which operate ex parte at the order nisi stage.
Execution — Garnishee Proceedings — Role of Judgment Debtor at Order Nisi Stage
At the garnishee order nisi stage, the judgment debtor is not a necessary party. Garnishee proceedings are distinct actions between the judgment creditor and the garnishee. The judgment debtor is served with the order nisi primarily to avoid embarrassment, but it is the garnishee, not the judgment debtor, who is required to show cause why the order should not be made absolute. The judgment debtor may be heard only with leave of court.
Execution — Garnishee Proceedings — Effect of Computational Errors
Clerical and arithmetical mistakes in a garnishee order nisi arising from miscalculation, oversight, or accidental slip may be corrected by the court under section 99 of The Civil Procedure Act without affecting the validity of the order. Such computational errors in the decretal amount do not constitute grounds for setting aside a garnishee order nisi, as the error is subject to correction under the slip rule before the order is made absolute.
Execution — Garnishee Proceedings — Nature and Effect of Order Nisi
A garnishee order nisi operates as an injunction preventing the garnishee from paying money to the judgment debtor until the order is made absolute or discharged. The order places the money in custodia legis but does not confer title on the attaching creditor or constitute an order to pay. It is only when the order is made absolute that the garnishee becomes liable to pay.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (12)

  • Makumbi Francis Xavier Gajuule v National Insurance Corporation [1979] HCB 230
  • Choice Investments Ltd v Jeromnimon [1981] 1 All ER 225
  • Choice Investments Ltd v Jeromnimon [1981] QB 149
  • Deutsche Schachtbau-und Tiefbohrgesellschaft mbH v Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd [1990] 1 AC 295
  • C&B Enterprises Limited v. Liege Zambia Limited, HPC 218 of 2016
  • Ram Chandra Naik Kalia v. Abdul Hakim (1913) I.L.R. 35 All. 204
  • Tinkler v. Hilder, (1849) 4 Ex. 187: 154 E.R. 1176
  • Verschures Creameries v. Hull and Netherlands Steamship CO., [1921] 2 K.B. 608
  • Lissenden v. C. A. V. Bosch Ltd., [1940] A.C. 412
  • Goodman Agencies Ltd v Attorney General and another (Constitutional Application No. 1 of 2012)
  • Nyandoro and Company Advocates v National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation [2020] eKLR
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Supply Maters Limited (Civil Appeal No. 1185 of 2021)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Vivo Energy Uganda Limited v C & A Tours & Travel Operators Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2501 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 350 (21 November 2024)
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.