THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

CIVIL DIVISION

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 0290 of 2022

(ARISING FROM EXECUTION MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION

NO. 14 OF 2022)

(ARISING FROM CONSOLIDATED CIVIL SUITS NOS 97 & 290 OF

2015)

PENTECOSTAL ASSEMBLIES OF GOD LIMITED::::::::::::::::APPLICANT

VERSUS

1. JOEL MUKALU
2. PENTECOSTAL ASSEMBLIES OF GOD::::::::::::::::RESPONDENTS
LIRA LIMITED (DEREGISTRED)

BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE SSEKAANA MUSA

RULING

The applicant was the successful party in Civil Suits Nos. 97 & 290 of 2015,
vide the judgment of this court delivered on 1st November 2019. A court
decree dated 6th November 2019 was duly extracted for execution. The 2nd
respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, which appeal failed and was
dismissed with costs. A decree of the Court of Appeal judgment dated 20 th
October 2021 was duly extracted.

The Court of Appeal in its judgment did not substitute the judgment and
decree of the High Court, however, the appellate court largely adopted the
orders of the High Court, but made no order on the return of the
applicant’s (1st respondent in the appeal) properties illegally held by the 2nd
respondent (the appellant in the appeal).
The decree of the court was partially complied with by the deregistration of
the 2nd respondent by Uganda Registration Services Bureau (URSB),
payment of the aggravated damages awarded by court, the taxed costs of
the suit in the High Court and Court of Appeal, only leaving the order of
the return of properties as outstanding and not being satisfied.

The applicant in Execution Application No. 014 of 2022 applied to the High
Court for execution of the High Court Decree and specifically Order No. (4)
of the High Court decree dated 6th November 2019 to effect that:

“4) An order that all properties in the names of the plaintiff and illegally
held by the 1st defendant should be returned to the plaintiff forthwith.”

The said order was not set aside by the appellate court. Following the
deregistration of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent as a former director
has remained in control of the affairs of the deregistered company, as
demonstrated in the partial satisfaction of the High Court and Court of
Appeal decrees. Without the court’s issuance of the consequential order
sought, the order of this court in the High Court decree dated 6th
November 2019 will remain unsatisfied infinitely and be rendered futile.

The applicant, therefore, filed this application under Section 33 of the

Judicature Act cap 13, Sections 34 (1), 92 and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act
Cap 71, and Order 52 Rules 1 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules Si 71—1 for
the following orders :

(1) A consequential order doth issue against the respondents, their agents,
permitted assigns and beneficiaries that the following properties which
belong to the applicant are liable for execution vide Execution
Miscellaneous Application No. 014 of 2022:

i. LRV 2916 Folio 4 Plot 36-40 & M. 25 Agwata Road, Lira

Municiplaity.
 ii. Plot M. 26 Kioga Road, Lira Municipality.

iii. Plot 4-12, Okori Olero Road at Ireda Shamba.

iv. Plot 89-97 Ogwal Aconga Road, Kakoge ‘B’, Ojwina Division.

v. Pentecostal Assemblies of God Limited churches under the Lira

Pastorate situate on untitled customary land and listed on annexure
“A3” to the affidavit in support of the application.

(2) Costs of this application be borne by the respondents.

The application was supported by the affidavit of ONAGA JACKY

FRANCO, the General Secretary of the applicant.

The parties were directed to file submissions that were considered by this
court.

The 1st respondent opposed the application and raised 2 preliminary points
of law that is:

1. This applications is illegal, bad in law, irregular and an abuse of

court process.
2. That the application does not disclose a cause of action against the 1 st
respondent.

The following issues were framed for determination by this court;

(1) Whether this is a proper application for the grant of the

consequential order sought?

(2) What remedies are available to the parties?

The applicant was represented by Lastone Gulume while the respondents

were represented by Kigenyi Emmanuel, Etuk Gerald and Elot Dennis.

The preliminary points of law raised by counsel for the 1st respondent shall
be resolved under issue 1.
Determination

Whether this is a proper application for the grant of the consequential

order sought?

The applicant seeks a consequential order against the respondents, their

agents, permitted assigns and beneficiaries that the following properties
which belong to the applicant are liable for execution vide Execution
Miscellaneous Application No. 014 of 2022:

i. LRV 2916 Folio 4 Plot 36-40 & M. 25 Agwata Road, Lira Municiplaity.
ii. Plot M. 26 Kioga Road, Lira Municipality.
iii. Plot 4-12, Okori Olero Road at Ireda Shamba.
iv. Plot 89-97 Ogwal Aconga Road, Kakoge ‘B’, Ojwina Division.
v. Pentecostal Assemblies of God Limited churches under the Lira
Pastorate situate on untitled customary land and listed on annexure
“A3” to the affidavit in support of the application.

The applicant was the successful party in Civil Suits Nos. 97 & 290 of 2015;
Pentecostal Assemblies of God Limited vs Pentecostal Assemblies of
God Lira Limited and Uganda Registration Services Bureau. The 2nd
respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, which appeal failed and was
dismissed with costs.

The Court of Appeal largely adopted the orders of the High Court. A
decree was extracted and partially fulfilled only leaving the order of the
return of properties as outstanding and not satisfied. The High Court
decreed that all properties in the names of the plaintiff and illegally held
by the 1st defendant should be returned to the plaintiff forthwith which
order has not been satisfied. This order was not set aside by the court of
appeal in its judgment.
The applicant contends that the respondents have not returned the
applicants properties to date. The respondents objected to executing the
judgment of this court stating that the appellate court had not pronounced
itself on the issue of properties and that the judgment of the trial court did
not list the properties that are to be returned to the applicant.

According to S.98 of the Civil Procedure Act, this court has inherent
powers “to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or
to prevent abuse of the process of court.”

Further, where questions relating to the execution of a decree arise between

parties to a suit, the court executing the decree has the jurisdiction to settle
such questions without filing a separate suit under Section 34 (1) of the
Civil Procedure Act. The said provision is to the effect that: -

All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was
passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge, or
satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the court executing the decree and
not by a separate suit.”

In these circumstances, the applicant was the successful party in Civil

Suits Nos. 97 & 290 of 2015 and is entitled to the fruits of that judgment
which can only be obtained through an application for consequential
orders.

Consequential order denotes an order following naturally in terms of

consistency and giving effect to the main judgment. Therefore, it is an
order following from the judgment. It is essentially one which makes the
principal order effective and effectual or which necessarily as being
incidental to the principal order in the matter. See Registered Trustees of
Apostolic Church v Okorolemi (1990) 6 NWLR (pt 158)15

This court gave the following order in general and broad terms;
A declaratory order that all properties registered in the names of the
plaintiff and illegally held by the 1st defendant should be returned to the
plaintiff.”

It follows from this order that there is need for a consequential founded
and derived from the judgment and final order given in those terms. In
other words, this consequential order is not merely incidental to a decision
properly made, but one which is merely to give effect to that decision.

The consequential order sought in this matter would give effect to a

judgment. It gives meaning to the judgment since it is traceable and flows
directly from the judgment and is consequent upon the reliefs claimed and
decreed to the applicant/plaintiff. It is an offshoot of the main claim and it
owes its existence to the main claim. It gives effect to the judgment already
given. See Eze v Gov. Abia State (2014) 14 NWLR (pt 1426) p. 194

It suffices to note therefore that the 1st respondent’s preliminary objection

that the application is illegal, bad in law, irregular and an abuse of court
process lacks merit.

On whether the application discloses a cause of action against the 1 st

respondent, I concur with the applicant’s submission that he is a necessary
party to this application since he has participated in all the litigation
leading up to this application, and the attachment sought vide EMA No. 14
of 2022 would be prejudicial to him if issued without a fair hearing. In
addition, if excluded from the proceedings before the court and EMA No.
14 of 2022, the 1st respondent and his agents would lodge numerous
applications to set aside the proceedings and order contending that he was
not heard.

This court under section 33 of the Judicature Act is empowered to give any
remedies sought in a matter if properly brought before the court. It
provides;
 The High Court shall, in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it by the
Constitution, this Act or any written law, grant absolutely or on such terms
and conditions as it thinks just, all such remedies as any of the parties to the
cause or matter is entitled to in respect of any legal or equitable claim
properly brought before it, so that as far as possible all matters in
controversy between the parties may be completely and finally determined
and all multiplicities of legal proceedings concerning any of those matters
are avoided.

The said property which was illegally held in company which was de-
registered and is now not recognized in law would now have vested in
individual members like the 1st respondent. The actions of the 1st
respondent to refuse to return the properties would be contemptuous of
the order of court since it was a clear order which has never been appealed
or overturned.

The said declaratory order cannot be defeated on flimsy arguments which

the 1st respondent counsel is putting forward in case. A declaratory order
that all properties registered in the names of the plaintiff and illegally held
by the 1st defendant should be returned to the plaintiff.” This order was
alive to the fact the 1st respondent or the membership of the deregistered
company-2nd respondent are holding onto the property illegally and the
same ought to be returned to the rightful owners (applicants)

This is therefore a proper application for the grant of a consequential order.

The consequential orders applied for by the applicant to issue.

This court therefore issues a consequential order in the following terms;

The respondents should return all properties registered or acquired in the

names of the plaintiff and is illegally held by the respondents or their
agents or assignees which are listed below;
 i. LRV 2916 Folio 4 Plot 36-40 & M. 25 Agwata Road, Lira
Municiplaity.
ii. Plot M. 26 Kioga Road, Lira Municipality.
iii. Plot 4-12, Okori Olero Road at Ireda Shamba.
iv. Plot 89-97 Ogwal Aconga Road, Kakoge ‘B’, Ojwina Division.
v. Pentecostal Assemblies of God Limited churches under the Lira
Pastorate situate on untitled customary land and listed on annexture
“A3” to the affidavit in support of the application.

Costs of the application are also granted to the applicant.

I so order

SSEKAANA MUSA
JUDGE
31st March 2023