The High Court clarifies the limits of the Chief Magistrate Court's jurisdiction and warns against misuse of corporate personality to evade claims

Waboga David
4 hours ago
5 min read

Uganda High Court Clarifies Limits of Revisional Jurisdiction and Corporate Veil in Property Attachment Before Judgment

High Court of Uganda at Kabale, Revision Application No. 005 of 2025 (Arising from Civil Misc. Application No. 35 of 2024 and Civil Suit No. 36 of 2024)

FACTS

On 12th April 2024, the Respondent, Andrew Akampereza, filed a summary suit (Civil Suit No. 036 of 2024) in the Chief Magistrate’s Court of Kabale seeking recovery of UGX 12,000,000/= from the Applicant, Ahmed Tindyebwa. The claim represented the respondent’s share of contributions allegedly owed in a joint business venture.

Tindyebwa sought leave to appear and defend the suit. Meanwhile, Akampereza filed Miscellaneous Application No. 35 of 2024 under Order 40 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking an order to attach a motor vehicle, registration number UBN 434T, as security for satisfaction of any potential decree.

The motor vehicle, however, was registered in the name of Beyond Remarkable Journeys Ltd, a company where Tindyebwa was said to be a director. Tindyebwa objected to the attachment, arguing that the property belonged to a company — a third party not privy to the proceedings — and thus could not be attached.

Despite the objection, on 29th April 2025, the Chief Magistrate, His Worship Derrick Byamugisha, ordered attachment of the vehicle. He reasoned that the Applicant could not “hide behind the company” to defeat the respondent’s claim.

Aggrieved, Tindyebwa filed Revision Application No. 005 of 2025 before the High Court at Kabale under Sections 83 and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 52 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

He sought revision of the magistrate’s ruling, contending that the Chief Magistrate:

Acted without jurisdiction in attaching property of a non-party;
Purported to lift the corporate veil, which is a preserve of the High Court; and
Rendered a ruling that was illegal and irregular.

The respondent opposed the revision, insisting that:

The magistrate acted within his pecuniary jurisdiction (claim was UGX 12m);
No veil was lifted, only attachment ordered;
The correct procedure for third-party property was objector proceedings, not revision;
The attachment was justified because the applicant was using the vehicle in furtherance of personal gain from their business.

Both parties were represented by counsel:

M/s Elgon Advocates for the Applicant;
M/s Bikangiso & Co. Advocates for the Respondent.

ISSUES

The High Court distilled the following issues for resolution:

Whether the Chief Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in ordering the attachment of a company vehicle (UBN 434T) registered in the name of a non-party.
Whether the Chief Magistrate illegally or irregularly lifted the corporate veil in violation of established law.
Whether the application was properly one for revision, or whether the applicant ought to have proceeded by appeal or objector proceedings.
What remedies are available to the parties.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Applicant’s Arguments

The Chief Magistrate erred by attaching a vehicle that belonged to a third party (Beyond Remarkable Journeys Ltd.), which was not a party to the suit. This was an illegality that required correction by revision.
The magistrate assumed jurisdiction he did not possess by lifting the veil, a remedy exclusively reserved for the High Court.
By proceeding in this manner, the Chief Magistrate acted illegally and with material irregularity, which squarely fell under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act (grounds for revision).
Since the matter involved an illegality, the proper recourse was revision, not appeal or objector proceedings.

Respondent’s Arguments

The magistrate acted within his pecuniary jurisdiction, as the claim was for UGX 12m, well within the limits of the Chief Magistrate’s Court.
The magistrate did not purport to lift the veil but merely exercised powers under Order 40 Rule 5 to preserve property from being disposed of before execution.
The applicant’s proper recourse was either to file objector proceedings under the Civil Procedure Rules or pursue an appeal, not revision.
The attachment was justified since the applicant was the sole director and beneficiary of the company’s assets, and the vehicle was purchased in furtherance of the joint business venture between the parties.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction

Justice Ssemogerere began by reiterating the narrow scope of Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act, which allows revision only where:

A court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law;
A court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it; or
A court has acted illegally, with material irregularity, or injustice.

Citing earlier precedents of Joseph Ntibaza v. Majambere Ronald (Misc. Application No. 005 of 2024); Kehooda Immaculate & Johnson Rwabuhe v. Lyamujungu Cooperative Financial Services (Revision Application No. 002 of 2025); the Judge stressed that revision is not an appeal and should not be used to re-evaluate evidence or correct mere errors in judgment. Rather, it is a tool to correct jurisdictional or procedural illegalities.

“Revision is not a hearing but a correction of an illegality. Findings of fact and law belong to an appellate process, not revision.”

Attachment Before Judgment – Order 40 Rule 5 CPR

The Court analyzed Order 40 Rule 5 CPR, which empowers courts to order attachment of property if it appears that a defendant is about to dispose of it to defeat execution of a decree.

The Chief Magistrate had found that:

There was a pending suit (Civil Suit No. 36 of 2024);
The respondent feared disposal of the vehicle by the applicant;
The applicant was looking for buyers outside Kabale jurisdiction (Mbarara, Kampala);
Such disposal could obstruct execution.

On this basis, the Chief Magistrate ordered attachment.

Justice Ssemogerere noted that while the registered owner was a company, the applicant did not furnish clear rebuttal evidence showing that the property was distinct from his personal interests.

The Chief Magistrate, therefore, was entitled to question whether the applicant was seeking to “hide behind” the company to frustrate justice.

Corporate Veil

The High Court clarified that while lifting the corporate veil is indeed a High Court preserve, in this case the magistrate did not formally pierce the veil. Instead, he acted under Order 40 Rule 5 to secure property pending judgment.

However, the Court cautioned that individuals cannot misuse corporate personality to evade legitimate claims, and courts are empowered to prevent abuse of the corporate form.

Proper Remedy

The Court emphasized that dissatisfaction with the magistrate’s findings on ownership and attachment should have been pursued by appeal, not revision. As established in Kadibu Eric v. Bernard Bagwire & Ors (HC CR No. 011 of 2004) and Kisembo Patrick v. Kyaligaba Richard (HC CV CR. No. 010 of 2010); allegations of erroneous findings are appealable issues, not grounds for revision.

Similarly, where a third party claims ownership of attached property, the proper course is to file objector proceedings, not revision.

Conclusion

The Court found no illegality in the Chief Magistrate’s exercise of jurisdiction. The ruling was therefore not revisable.

HOLDING

The Chief Magistrate acted within jurisdiction under Order 40 Rule 5 CPR in ordering attachment of the motor vehicle.
The magistrate did not improperly lift the corporate veil; his reasoning was limited to preventing misuse of corporate form to obstruct justice.
The applicant’s grievances were matters of appeal, not revision.
Accordingly, the Revision Application No. 005 of 2025 failed.
Costs were awarded to the Respondent.

PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED

Limited Scope of Revision
Revision is not a substitute for appeal. It only lies to correct illegalities or jurisdictional errors, not to reassess facts or law.
Corporate Personality and Abuse of Form
A litigant cannot hide behind a company to shield personal obligations. Courts may disregard the separate personality of a company where it is being misused to defeat justice.
Proper Remedies
Where a party contests ownership of property attached, the correct remedy is objector proceedings, not revision.
Where a party contests the correctness of a magistrate’s findings, the proper remedy is appeal, not revision.
Attachment Before Judgment
Courts may attach property under Order 40 Rule 5 CPR if there is a risk that the defendant intends to dispose of property to obstruct execution.