THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 207 OF 2002
(Arising from Civil Suit No. 256 of 2001)
ABDUL KADIR SEMPA ……………………………..PLAINTIFF/JUDGEMENT-CREDITOR
ALAMANZANI BWANIKA....................................... DEFENDANT/J UDGEMENT- DEBTOR
FAUSTIN K. NKUNDA ……………………………………………...OBJECTOR/APPLICANT
BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAMES OGOOLA
(a) to release from attachment the suit property, on Block 11 Plot 1, Kabula County, Bugasa, to the extent that the Applicant is a bona fide occupant thereon;
(b) to set aside the intended eviction of the Applicant.
Having listened to the submissions of both counsel in this application, I am satisfied that:
- the Objector is a bona fide occupant of the suit land;
- he was not a party to HCCS No. 256/01. That case came to his notice only recently, when an eviction order was issued and attempts made to evict him;
- he has made substantial developments on that land — having built a house, church and valley dams thereon.
I turn now from the facts of this case to the applicable law. The law on Objector proceedings has long been established. The sole question to be investigated is one of possession. Questions of legal right and title are not relevant — except in so far as they may affect the decision as to whether the possession is on account of or in trust for the judgment debtor or some other person — see ALLEN J in the case of Edward Khakale t/a New Elgon Textiles v Wadali, and in the matter of En Mugunjo  HCB 30.
Similarly, KATO J (as his Lordship of the Supreme Court then was) held in Kiwalabye v Uganda Commercial Bank that:
- Court, while considering Objector Proceedings, is concerned with the possession of the property and not title.
- Objector Proceedings brought under 0.19, rr. 55, 56 and 57, invite Court to decide the propriety of the execution of a given judgment. They do not concern the final rights between the parties — which rights are considered under r.60 of the same Order 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
In holding as he did, KATO J cited with approval the two earlier cases of:
(i) Harilal & Co. v Buganda Industries  EA 318; and
(ii) Chotabai M. Patel v Chotabai M. Patel  EA 743.
In view of the facts and the law of this instant case, Court hereby grants the application, and makes the orders sought, namely:
(1) an order releasing from attachment the property in Block 11, Plot 1, Kabula County, Bugasa; and
(2) an order setting aside the eviction of the Applicant from the above land.
In addition, the costs of this application are hereby awarded to the Applicant.
DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT, BEFORE:
Ernest Kalibala, Esq. — Counsel for the Applicant
Suleman Musoke, Esq. — Counsel for the Respondent
J.M. Egetu — Court Clerk