Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Musoke (Advocate) v Alibhai Hassanali Gulamali and Others (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 7 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 129 (2 September 2022)
The High Court held that garnishee proceedings can reach funds held for a judgment debtor, even where the holder is not the debtor’s direct account holder.
Administrator General v Kakooza & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2017) [2017] UGHCEBD 24 (3 October 2017)
The court held that execution proceedings by garnishee order absolute are ordinarily completed upon issuance of the order, and a stay of execution is not available thereafter. However, the court found that the funds in the Administrator General's account are trust funds belonging to various beneficiaries and cannot be attached to satisfy liabilities such as costs, interest, and damages awarded against the Administrator General. Only the principal sum held for the specific beneficiary (Respondent) may be paid from the trust account. Any additional sums awarded by the court, including costs and…
Source excerpt
Kavuma T/A Kavuma & Associates v Attorney General & Goodman Agencies (Misc Application No. 417 of 2012) [2013] UGHCCD 44 (26 March 2013)
The High Court granted a garnishee-style application, directing that the applicant’s decree be satisfied by the Attorney General before payment to Goodman Agencies Ltd.
Lwanga v Administrator General & Anor (Civil Suit No 0086 of 2002) [2002] UGHC 12 (28 August 2002)
The High Court made absolute a garnishee nisi against a bank account linked to the Administrator General, treating it as a means to secure payment of taxed costs.
Soroti Municipal Council v Uganda Land Commission and Attorney General (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 78 OF 1998) [1999] UGHC 56 (27 October 1999)
The court held that the funds appropriated by Parliament to the Uganda Land Commission are statutory grants for specific purposes and do not constitute a debt due or accruing due from the Government to the Commission. Section 22 of the Government Proceedings Act is intended to apply to situations where the Government owes a debt that could be attached if owed by a private person, which is not the case here. The relationship between the Government and the Uganda Land Commission regarding these funds is not that of debtor and creditor, but rather one of statutory grant. Therefore, the applicant…
Source excerpt
Sunder Dass v Municipal Council of Nairobi (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1948) [1948] EACA 10 (1 January 1948)
The Court held that a security deposit could be garnished to the extent of any balance after lawful deductions, and remitted the case for accounting.
Czeczowiczka v Loy and Another (Appeals Nos. 89 and 90 of 1934 consolidated.) [1936] EACA 5 (1 January 1936)
The Privy Council restored Kenyan bankruptcy notices and a receiving order, holding that German attachment orders did not prevent the debtors from pursuing remedies and did not bar execution.
Wahid and Sons v Munshiram and Co (CA'. 29/1932.) [1932] EACA 53 (1 January 1932)
The court held that no attachable debt existed when the prohibitory order was issued, so the attachment failed. The assignees were entitled to the funds.
Wahid and Sons v Scammell and Others (CC. 373A/31.) [1932] EACA 43 (1 January 1932)
The court held that a debt which has accrued due, even if payment is postponed, is attachable before judgment, following the principle established in Webb v. Stanton. The assignments relied upon by the objectors only took effect from the date of registration, which occurred after the attachment. As the provisions of the Chattels Transfer Ordinance were not complied with, the assignments were void against the attaching creditors. The objectors failed to establish a valid interest in the property at the date of attachment, and thus their claim was disallowed.
Source excerpt
