THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
MISCELLENEOUS APPLICATION NO 349 OF 2003
(Arising from M.A. NO 396 OF 2003)
UGANDA ELECTRICITY BOARD……………………… APPELLANT
1. VINCENT BAGAMUHUNDA
2. JOHN KATONGOLE
3. EDWARD ROGERS KIWANUKA ………………… RESPONDENT
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (U) LTD ::::::::::::: GARNISHEE
23rd October 2003
BEFORE: THE HON. MR. JUSTICE R.O. OKUMU WENGI
This appeal is for orders that:-
The ruling of the Registrar delivered on 23/7/2003 be set aside
(b) The decree absolute therein be discharged.
Costs of the application.
The Registrars ruling that is the subject of this appeal resulted in a decree absolute being ordered in garnishee proceedings prosecuted in execution of a decree of this court which was reviewed in Miscellaneous 396 of 2003. The order for review has not been appealed and the sums payable there under was the subject of attachment by the successful party in their proceedings. The grounds for this application are set out in the Notice of Motion filed in court on 24th July 2003 but basically being that the learned Registrar was wrong in that she did not appreciate that no sum was payable by the Respondent to the appellant and as such the garnishee would not have been ordered to pay any sums to the appellant. Both counsel agreed to file and did file written submissions. However I requested both counsel to make an oral heads of argument presentation which they did.
For the appellant it was submitted that after a decree was passed against it, it proceeded to make computations. It concluded that the decree had been satisfied by virtue of the fact that retrenchment packages had been paid out and these sums were deductible from the decretal sums leaving no sum payable until the year 2008. Secondly that the decree was not to be executed by way of garnishee proceedings as pension is paid monthly and no lump sum was now payable. The net effect was therefore to say that the Appellant now owed no money to the Respondents, under a decree, whose burden had been offset from retrenchment payments.
On his part, the respondent contended that any argument founded on retrenchment packages canceling the decree had been rejected by the trial Judge. Secondly that the Respondent had failed to certify to court under order 19 rule 2 of the CPR any adjustment made in the decretal sum using retrenchment packages or any other payment to satisfy it. Counsel cited the case of Pobari Vs Meghji Nathoo Shah & Others (1961) EA 676. Thirdly that the appeal is res judicata in so far us it seeks to deny liability of the Appellant settled in the decree in terms of Hon. Justice Egonda