Wakilii

Wahid and Sons v Scammell and Others (CC. 373A-31.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1932] EACA 43 · 1932 Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Objection to attachment before judgment of moneys accrued due under a construction contract
Decision
Objection to attachment dismissed; attachment upheld in favour of judgment-creditors

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 a debt which has accrued due but of which payment has been postponed is attachable before judgment, following Webb v Stanton. An assignment of such debt before it is actually payable is void as against an attaching creditor unless the provisions of the Chattels Transfer Ordinance (No. 24 of 1930) have been complied with. The objectors' assignments were not registered until after the attachment and did not comply with the Ordinance, rendering them ineffective against the judgment-creditors.

Outcome

Objection to attachment dismissed; attachment upheld in favour of judgment-creditors

Facts

Abdul Wahid & Sons commenced action against T. Scammell and another on 25 November 1931. The judgment-debtor consented to judgment on 26 November 1931. On the same day, the judgment-creditors applied for execution by way of attachment of moneys owing to the judgment-debtors by the Public Works Department under a construction contract for erection of ten Asiatic quarters. The attachment was granted on 27 November 1931. On 7 December 1931, the Public Works Department paid the moneys into Court. On 10 December 1931, Munshiram & Co. objected to the attachment, claiming an interest in the attached moneys by virtue of two assignments dated 1 August 1931 and 24 September 1931. Neither assignment was registered until 24 December 1931, after the attachment had been effected. A certificate for payment under the construction contract was issued on 4 December 1931.

Issues

  1. Whether a debt which has accrued due but of which payment has been postponed is attachable before judgment.
  2. Whether an assignment of such debt before it is actually payable is void as against an attaching creditor where the provisions of the Chattels Transfer Ordinance have not been complied with.
  3. Whether the objectors had an interest in the attached property at the date of attachment.

Orders

  • Objection disallowed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Attachment Before Judgment — Accrued Debts — Postponed Payment
A debt which has accrued due but of which payment has been postponed is attachable before judgment, as it represents a sum of money payable in the future by reason of a present obligation.
Definition of Debt — Attachment — Present Obligation
A debt is a sum of money which is now payable or will become payable in the future by reason of a present obligation (debitum in presenti, solvendum in futuro). An accruing debt is a debt not yet actually payable but represented by an existing obligation.
Assignment of Debts — Registration — Effect Against Attaching Creditors
An assignment of a debt which has accrued due but is not yet payable is void as against an attaching creditor unless the provisions of the Chattels Transfer Ordinance (No. 24 of 1930) have been complied with, including registration.
Chattels Transfer Ordinance — Registration — Effective Date
Under section 16 of the Chattels Transfer Ordinance (No. 24 of 1930), every instrument is deemed to be made on the day it is executed but takes effect only from the time of its registration.
Assignment — Void Against Creditors — Non-Compliance with Statutory Requirements
An assignment which does not comply with the provisions of section 26(2) of the Chattels Transfer Ordinance is void as against judgment-creditors under section 13(1)(c) of the Ordinance.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Civil Procedure Ordinance s.44
  • Civil Procedure Ordinance Order XIX Rule 43
  • Civil Procedure Ordinance Order XIX Rule 49
  • Civil Procedure Ordinance Order XIX Rule 56
  • Civil Procedure Ordinance Order XX Rule 1
  • Chattels Transfer Ordinance (No. 24 of 1930) s.13(1)(c)
  • Chattels Transfer Ordinance (No. 24 of 1930) s.16
  • Chattels Transfer Ordinance (No. 24 of 1930) s.26
  • Chattels Transfer Ordinance (No. 24 of 1930) s.26(2)

Cases cited (5)

  • Webb v Stanton (11 Q.B.D. 527)
  • Flatland v Pritchett (3 Q.B.D. 215)
  • Badeley v Consolidated Bank (38 Ch. D. 238)
  • Bandaan v Adyanath (36 Cal. 936)
  • O'Driscoll v Manchester Insurance Committee (1915, 3 K.B. 499)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wahid and Sons v Scammell and Others (CC. 373A-31.) [1932] EACA 43 (1 January 1932)
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.