Court name
High Court of Uganda
Judgment date
28 May 2002

Italian Asphalt Haulage Ltd & Ors v Assist (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal-2000/9) [2002] UGHC 60 (28 May 2002);

Cite this case
[2002] UGHC 60


 


THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2000
(Arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 223 of 1999 of
the Chief Magistrate’s Court of Mengo)

1. ITALIAN ASPHALT HAULAGE LTD
2. TITO O
. TWIJUKY P/A }:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPELLANTS
3. M/S TRUST MASTERS AGENCIES


VERSUS
ASSIST (U) LTD
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT
BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. LUGAYIZI
 JUDGEMENT
This judgment is in respect of an appeal which arose out of the ruling of the Chief Magistrate of Mengo (His Worship Mr. Deo Nizeyimana) in Miscellaneous Application No. 233 of 1999. The background to the appeal is briefly as follows. The 1st appellant rented out the suit premise which is on Block 265, Plot 339 Bunamwaya to the respondent. Thereafter, the two - had a misunderstanding as to the outstanding rent for the suit premises. Subsequently, the respondent vacated the suit premises and took all its moveable property to a new site at Nalukolongo. On the instructions of the 1st appellant, the 2- appellant obtained a Special Certificate of Distress from the Chief Magistrate’s-court under section 3 of the Distress for Rent (Bailiff’s) Act (Cap.68) which empowered him to levy distress upon the respondent’s moveable property that was on the suit premises with a view to recovering the outstanding rent. With that certificate in his hands, the 2nd appellant proceeded to seize an assortment of the respondent’s moveable property. He then advertised them with the intention of selling them. At that point the respondent applied to the Chief Magistrate of Mengo for an. order canceling the Special Certificate. Court fixed a date to hear the application and both sides were notified of that date. At the time of hearing the application M/S Shonubi & Co. Advocates represented the appellants and M/S Mugisha & Co. Advocates represented the respondent. At the outset of the hearing the appellants raised four preliminary objections which they lost. Following that event the appellants appealed to this Honourable Court against the Chief Magistrate’s ruling dated 19th January 2000. That is the background to this appeal.
The appellant’s Memorandum of Appeal initially cited four grounds which Court finds
unnecessary to reproduce here. However, with the leave of Court, the appellants subsequently amended the third ground of appeal to read as follows,
“3 (a)    The learned Chief Magistrate erred, in law and fact in ruling that the annextures to Mr.