[2009] UGHCCD 2

[2009] UGHCCD 2

The High Court held that there is no statutory right of appeal against the decision of a Chief Magistrate to grant a special certificate to levy distress for rent under the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act and its Rules. The application was improperly brought under Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] UGHCCD 2
Parties
Applicant: Emmanuel Nangoli; Respondent: Manafa Dealers Ltd.
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
9 March 2009
Case Number
HCT-04-CV-MA-0143 OF 2001
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
Rugadya, J
Legal Topics
Distress for Rent, Appeals Procedure, Certification of Bailiffs, Tenancy Disputes
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Land and Property Distress for Rent Appeals Procedure Certification of Bailiffs Tenancy Disputes

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emmanuel Nangoli

Applicant

Manafa Dealers Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant had a right of appeal against the grant of a special certificate to levy distress for rent by the Chief Magistrate.
  2. 2 Whether the procedure adopted by the applicant in bringing the appeal was proper under the Civil Procedure Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that there is no statutory right of appeal against the decision of a Chief Magistrate to grant a special certificate to levy distress for rent under the Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act and its Rules. The application was improperly brought under Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which only provides for appeals from orders of a registrar, not from a Chief Magistrate. The absence of a statutory right of appeal is not a mere technicality but a substantive bar to the application. Consequently, the preliminary objection was upheld and the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.