Wakilii

Welt Machinen Engineering ltd v Chine road & bridge corporation & 2 ors (Misc. Application No. 51 of 2015-09-07)

High Court · [2015] UGHCCD 73 · 2015 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for attachment before judgment arising from civil suit
Decision
Application granted with order for 3rd respondent to withhold UGX 8.5 billion pending suit completion within six months

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

Court granted application for attachment before judgment. Held that although applicant did not prove 1st respondent was about to leave the jurisdiction, the 1st respondent failed to demonstrate capacity to satisfy any decree. To preserve fair balance between parties and prevent prejudice to applicant if payment made before suit disposal, 3rd respondent ordered to withhold UGX 8.5 billion due to 1st respondent until further court orders.

Outcome

Application granted with order for 3rd respondent to withhold UGX 8.5 billion pending suit completion within six months

Facts

Applicant brought civil suit against 1st respondent and sought interlocutory order for attachment before judgment. Applicant sought security of UGX 8.582 billion or attachment of payments due to 1st respondent from 3rd respondent for construction of Moroto-Nakapiripit road which was 85% complete. First respondent, though registered in Uganda with place of business, had directors without permanent addresses in Uganda. First respondent did not demonstrate capacity to satisfy any decree that might be passed against it. Third respondent held monies due to 1st respondent for the road construction contract and did not contradict this fact at hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st respondent should furnish security for its appearance and to satisfy any decree that may be passed against it.
  2. Whether the 3rd respondent should be ordered to withhold payments due to the 1st respondent pending disposal of the main suit.

Orders

  • The 3rd respondent will withhold UGX 8.5 billion (eight billion five hundred million) of the money due to the 1st respondent until further orders of this court.
  • The suit from which this application arises must be completed within six months from the date of this order failure of which the 1st respondent is at liberty to apply for this order to be vacated.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Attachment Before Judgment — Conditions for Grant
Under Order 40 rr.1, 2, 6, and 12, for an application for attachment before judgment to succeed, the applicant must satisfy the court that the respondent with intent to delay or avoid process has absconded or left the jurisdiction, is about to abscond or dispose of property, or is about to leave the jurisdiction such that execution of any decree would be prejudiced.
Civil Procedure — Attachment Before Judgment — Purpose of Interlocutory Relief
The function of interlocutory applications such as attachment before judgment is to enable the court to grant interim relief that preserves a fair balance between the parties and gives them due protection while awaiting the final outcome of proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Attachment Before Judgment — Security Where Capacity to Satisfy Decree Uncertain
Where an applicant has not shown that the respondent is about to leave the jurisdiction but the respondent has failed to assure the court that it has capacity to satisfy any decree that may be passed against it, it is fair to order the respondent to furnish security to satisfy any decree that may be made.
Civil Procedure — Attachment Before Judgment — Attachment of Third Party Payments
Where a respondent has substantial payments due from a third party and such payment is likely to be made before disposal of the main suit, the court may order the third party to withhold payment to prevent prejudice to the applicant should the suit be resolved in the applicant's favour.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Order 40 rr.1, 2, 6, and 12

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Welt Machinen Engineering ltd v Chine road & bridge corporation & 2 ors (Misc. Application No. 51 of 2015-09-07) [2015] UGHCCD 73 (9 September 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.