[2003] UGSC 1

[2003] UGSC 1

The Supreme Court found that the appellant did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Order 19 rule 43(1)(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules for attachment of shares. There was no evidence that the appellant served a prohibitory order on the corporation secretary or affixed a copy in court, as required by law....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] UGSC 1
Parties
Appellant: Bamu Partners and Auctioneers; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Appeal 3 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment in the Supreme Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
Oder, JSC, J.W.N.Tsekooko, JSC, Karokora, JSC, Mulenga, JSC, Kanyeihamba, JSC
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Attachment of Shares, Execution of Judgments, Court Bailiff Fees
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Taxation of Costs Attachment of Shares Execution of Judgments Court Bailiff Fees

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bamu Partners and Auctioneers

Appellant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment in the Supreme Court

  1. 1 Whether the appellant complied with Order 19 rule 43(1)(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules regarding attachment of shares.
  2. 2 Whether it was the appellant's duty to prove that attachment was effected.
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider certain grounds of appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that the appellant did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Order 19 rule 43(1)(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules for attachment of shares. There was no evidence that the appellant served a prohibitory order on the corporation secretary or affixed a copy in court, as required by law. The onus was on the appellant to prove that attachment was effected in accordance with the rules, especially since the claim for costs depended on such compliance. Both the Principal Judge and the Court of Appeal correctly held that neither party effected attachment in compliance with the law, and the appellant's claim for substantial bailiff fees was unjustified. The Supreme...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent in the Supreme Court and courts below.
  • Registrar to send a copy of the judgment to the Chief Justice for consideration of amendment to the law on bailiff fees.