[2023] UGHC 4

[2023] UGHC 4

The court found that while the applicant's concerns about the respondent's foreign incorporation and potential to evade satisfaction of a decree were not fully substantiated, the respondent's assertion of substantial assets within Uganda was also unproven. The court held that the object of attachment before judgment and provision of security is to prevent decrees from becoming unenforceable due to lack of assets. The applicant failed to specify the value of the guarantees sought for attachment, and the guarantees in question were in favour of UNRA, a third party not involved in the suit, making their attachment inappropriate. However, given the existence of serious questions of law and...

Citation
[2023] UGHC 4
Parties
Applicant: Evelyn Bachwenkojo Karugaba (suing through her lawful attorney Denis Karugaba Marunga); Respondent: Shengli Engineering Construction Co. (U) Ltd
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
17 January 2023
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application No. 44 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application partially allowed
Judges
Mugabo, J
Legal Topics
Attachment Before Judgment, Security for Decree, Foreign Company Assets, Lease Agreement Dispute, Trespass, Bank Guarantee Orders
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land and Property Attachment Before Judgment Security for Decree Foreign Company Assets Lease Agreement Dispute Trespass Bank Guarantee Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evelyn Bachwenkojo Karugaba (suing through her lawful attorney Denis Karugaba Marunga)

Applicant

Shengli Engineering Construction Co. (U) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order for attachment before judgment of the respondent's performance and retention money guarantees.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent should be ordered to furnish security in the form of a bank guarantee.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's attorney has proper authority to institute the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the applicant's concerns about the respondent's foreign incorporation and potential to evade satisfaction of a decree were not fully substantiated, the respondent's assertion of substantial assets within Uganda was also unproven. The court held that the object of attachment before judgment and provision of security is to prevent decrees from becoming unenforceable due to lack of assets. The applicant failed to specify the value of the guarantees sought for attachment, and the guarantees in question were in favour of UNRA, a third party not involved in the suit, making their attachment inappropriate. However, given the existence of serious questions of law and...

Court Disposition

application partially allowed

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to furnish security in the form of a bank guarantee issued by any commercial bank in Uganda in the sum of UGX 100,000,000/= within 30 days from the date of this ruling.
  • Costs of this application shall abide by the outcome of Civil Suit No. 05 of 2022.