Wakilii

Wabwire & Anor v Mayende (HCT-04-CV-MA-0122 2012)

High Court · [2015] UGHCCD 108 · 2015 Appeal Dismissed (Partly Allowed on Quantum) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from ruling of the Assistant Registrar in a miscellaneous application concerning execution of a consent order
Decision
Appeal dismissed. Order for excess rent payment varied. Respondent entitled to vacant possession of muziigo.

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

Held that execution of the consent order occurred in 2000 when appellants' counsel wrote to police and took possession of the muziigo. The decretal amount was satisfied by October 2004. The order to pay 11 million shillings was irregular and set aside, replaced with an order to pay all excess rent at 50,000 shillings monthly from October 2004. Respondent entitled to immediate vacant possession. Appeal dismissed save for variation on quantum.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed. Order for excess rent payment varied. Respondent entitled to vacant possession of muziigo.

Facts

In 2000, respondent sued appellants in Civil Suit 30/1999, which was dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellants' taxed bill of costs was 2,940,000 shillings. Parties entered a consent order whereby judgment debtor would give vacant possession of a muziigo on plot 6 Customs Road Busia to judgment creditor's counsel to collect rent at 50,000 shillings monthly until payment in full, with possession to be delivered on 21 October 2000. On 23 October 2000, appellants' counsel wrote to police for assistance with eviction. In 2009, appellants applied for a warrant to give vacant possession of the same property. The warrant was issued on 17 June 2009. Respondent then filed Miscellaneous Application 16/2009 seeking an order that appellants remit excess rent collected. The Assistant Registrar found appellants liable and ordered payment of 11 million shillings excess rent and immediate vacant possession. Appellants appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the Assistant Registrar erred in ordering a notice to show cause to issue to the appellants
  2. Whether the Assistant Registrar erred in ordering appellants to remit excess rent of 11 million shillings to the respondent
  3. Whether the Assistant Registrar erred in ordering immediate vacant possession of the muziigo to the respondent

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Order to pay 11,000,000 shillings set aside.
  • Order substituted: appellant to pay back to respondent all excess rent received at monthly rate of 50,000 shillings from October 2004 to date.
  • Respondent entitled to immediate vacant possession of the muziigo.
  • Right of appeal explained.

Rules and key headnotes

Execution — Consent Orders — When Execution Deemed to Have Occurred
Where a consent order provides for delivery of vacant possession and judgment creditor's counsel writes to police for assistance with eviction and a record of properties is made, execution is deemed to have occurred at that time, and the creditor cannot later claim that execution did not happen and seek a fresh warrant years later.
Consent Orders — Interpretation — Right to Recover Excess Collections
Where a consent order allows a judgment creditor to collect rent at a specified monthly rate until payment in full, once the decretal amount is satisfied, the judgment debtor is entitled to recover all excess rent collected thereafter and to immediate vacant possession of the property.
Appellate Review — Fresh Evaluation of Evidence
A first appellate court has a duty to re-evaluate the evidence and give it fresh scrutiny, and come up with fresh conclusions thereon.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.44 r.1(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.50 rr.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.50 rr.6
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.50 rr.8
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.19

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wabwire & Anor Vs Mayende (HCT-04-CV-MA-0122_2012) [2015] UGHCCD 108 (21 October 2015)
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.