Coline House Limited v KTA Advocates (Miscellaneous Application 1141 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 300 (18 September 2024)

5 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA

(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1141 OF 2023

(Arising out of Misc. Applications No. 277 of 2023 and No. 1481 of 2022)

10 (Arising from Civil Suit No. 877 of 2022)

COLLINE HOUSE LTD::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT

VERSUS

KTA ADVOCATES ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT

BEFORE HON. JUSTICE HARRIET GRACE MAGALA

15 RULING

Background

This Application is brought under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 33 of the Judicature Act, Order 50 rule 1(2) (3) (a) and (c), and Order 51 rule 6 and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

- 20 The Applicant seeks that court grants: - a) An order reviewing and varying order No. 2 of its orders of 21/12/2022 to allow 30% of the forced sale value of the Respondent's unilateral valuation report of the suit property from that of 2015 to the most current valuation report of 2018. - 25 b) An order that the orders of this court issued in MA 277 of 2023 and MA No. 1481 of 2022 requiring the Applicant to pay 30% of the forced sale of the first valuation conducted at the time of execution of the mortgage

1 | P a g e

- 5 within 30 days of the order be reviewed, varied to allow for the latter valuation of 2018 being the most current one be the one considered in place of the first valuations which are confusing. - c) An order that the Respondent having made two separate valuation reports in 2015 and 2018 presenting different forced sale values is 10 estopped under the contra-proferentum rule from denying the most current forced sale value. - d) An order validating and allowing the already paid 30% of the forced sale value of the Respondent's second valuation report of 2018 of UGX 5,535,000,000/- which translates to the UGX 1,660,024,000/- that the 15 Applicant compliantly paid to the court on 4.8.2023 as having fully

satisfied the Court Order.

- e) A declaration that the reckoning of the computation of time of the 30 days ordered by the court excludes the court vacation period. - f) Alternatively, the court extends the time within which to pay court the - 20 balance between the forced sale value of the valuation report of 2015 and that of 2018 which is UGX 355,500,000/-. - g) The Respondent's further execution of court orders in MA No. 277 of 2023 and MA No. 1481 of 2022 be stayed pending the hearing of this Application. - 25 h) Costs of this Application be provided for.

The Respondent filed their Affidavit in Reply to this Application and the Applicant filed their Affidavit in Rejoinder. I shall not reproduce the averments therein, but I will duly keep referring to the same in this Ruling.

5 Representation and Hearing

The Applicant was represented by M/s Akampumuza & Co. Advocates while the self-represented through KTA Advocates.

The Applicant filed its submissions, but the Respondent did not. Rather, the Respondent filed a letter dated 20th January 2024 titled on record as *"Consent*

10 *to Orders sought by the Applicant."*

On reading the contents of the letter, I have established that the Respondent consents to two of the Orders sought in this Application i.e. an order reviewing and varying of Order No. 2 of this Honorable court dated 21/12/2022 to allow 30% of the forced sale value of the Respondent's unilateral valuation report of

- 15 the suit property from 2015 to their most recent valuation report of 2018, validation and allowance of the already paid 30% of the forced sale value of the Respondent's second valuation report of 2018, amounting to 1,660,024,000/-, which was paid to the Court on 4/8/2023. The Respondent as well prays the costs abide the main suit. - 20 This consent resolves the *Orders a, b, c, d and e* sought in this Application.

On that basis, the court shall make determination on the rest of the orders sought in this Application excluding the ones consented to, given that the Respondent consented to specific orders in their letter.

Determination

25 This Application, I must note is quite omnibus. It is structured as an application for review under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules but later the Applicant seeks this Court to exercise its discretion and inherent powers and grant discretionary remedies.

5 The order that Respondent's further execution of court orders in MA No. 277 of 2023 and MA No. 1481 of 2022 be stayed pending the hearing of this Application, is redundant since there is no execution to stay.

The remaining issues for the determination of Court are:

*i) Whether the reckoning of the computation of time of the 30 days ordered* 10 *by the court excludes court vacation period?*

The Applicant's submissions are largely premised on the already agreed to orders by the Respondent.

This court in Miscellaneous Application No. 277 of 2023 delivered a Ruling and on 7th July 2023 and ordered the Applicant to make cash payment of 30% of the

15 forced sale value of the suit property in satisfaction of the Court's order in Miscellaneous Application No. 1481 of 2022, within thirty days from the delivery of the Ruling.

The Applicant seeks to exclude the vacation period from the computation of time within which to do an act ordered by the Court. The Applicant provides no 20 legal justification or basis for this request.

Whereas under Rule 4 of the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules states that the court shall during vacation, deal will criminal business and not sit for the discharge of civil business like this case, there is no exclusion of such time in the computation of time to perform any act ordered by the court. The court

25 and registries remain open. Judicial officers and other members of staff are available to handle urgent civil matters upon satisfying court that the matter is urgent. I find no justification in failure to perform any act as directed by court due to the court vacation.

5 In addition to the above, the law is clear on how time is computed. According to section 34(1) of the Interpretation Act, in computation of time, the day the act is done is excluded. Under the Civil Procedure Rules, Order 51 on time is also very clear on computation of time.

This order is hereby denied.

10 *ii) Costs of this Application.*

The Applicant prayed for costs. On the other hand, the Respondent requested that the costs be in the cause. Under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, costs follow the event. The Respondent later consented partly to the Application, and the Application succeeded partially. It is only proper that the 15 costs abide the main cause.

- This Application partially succeeds in the following terms: $\mathsf{S}$ - a) Order No. 2 of this Honorable court dated 21/12/2022 is varied to allow 30% of the forced sale value of the Respondent's unilateral valuation report of the suit property from 2015 to their most recent valuation report of 2018. - b) The already paid 30% of the forced sale value of the Respondent's second $10$ valuation report of 2018, amounting to 1,660,024,000/-, which was paid to the Court on $4/8/2023$ is hereby admitted as satisfaction of the Order. - c) Reckoning of thirty days' time does not exclude court vacation. - d) The rest of the orders sought are overtaken by events. - e) Costs shall abide the main cause. 15

Dated and signed at Kampala this 18^th day of September 2024.

Harriet Grace Magala

Judge

Delivered online via ECCMIS this 23^rd day of September 2024. $20$