Makerere University Business School and 2 Others v Dr. Akampumuza (Civil Application No. 265 of 2015)

Court of Appeal · [2015] UGCA 2032 · 2015 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application for an interim order of stay of High Court proceedings pending hearing of the main application for a substantive stay

Decision

Application for interim order of stay dismissed with costs; trial Judge permitted to finalise the High Court proceedings

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for an interim order staying High Court proceedings pending a substantive stay application. The applicants sought to halt judicial review proceedings after the trial Judge declined to hear their preliminary points of law before cross-examination concluded, directing instead that the points be addressed in written submissions and in his ruling. The Court found no capriciousness or error in the trial Judge's exercise of discretion, noting the applicants had been given full opportunity to address the preliminary points and had already filed submissions. As the matter awaited ruling, a stay was unnecessary and the balance of convenience favoured letting the trial Judge finalise the proceedings. The application was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The respondent filed High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 310 of 2013 for review, challenging procedural impropriety in the appointment of the third applicant, breach of statute, and alleged illegal occupation of the office of Principal. Hearing commenced in November 2013, and parties cross-examined each other's witnesses. After a change of the applicants' counsel and adjournments, the resumed hearing was set for August 2015 for further cross-examination. At that hearing the applicants' counsel sought, without prior notice, to raise preliminary points of law: that the cause was time barred, disclosed no cause of action, and that the applicant lacked locus standi. Relying on Order 6 Rule 28 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the trial Judge directed that cross-examination be completed first and the points of law be dealt with in written submissions and in his ruling. Leave to appeal was refused. The applicants then sought from the Court of Appeal an interim stay of the High Court proceedings pending their substantive stay application, while the proceedings had advanced to await ruling.

Issues

Whether an interim order staying the High Court proceedings should be granted pending the hearing of the main application for stay.
Whether the trial Judge's refusal to allow preliminary points of law to be raised before completing cross-examination warranted appellate interference with his discretion.

Orders

Application for an interim order of stay disallowed and dismissed.
Costs to the Respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Proceedings — Interim Stay — Far-reaching Remedy Not Granted Lightly

A stay of proceedings is a far-reaching remedy that should not be granted lightly, and where the underlying matter has advanced to await ruling such that a stay is unnecessary, the balance of convenience favours allowing the trial court to finalise the proceedings.

Civil Procedure — Judicial Discretion — Appellate Interference with Trial Court's Exercise of Discretion

An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's exercise of judicial discretion unless it was exercised injudiciously, that is, arbitrarily, capriciously, in a pattern of bias, or beyond authority.

Civil Procedure — Preliminary Points of Law — Timing under Order 6 Rule 28 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Under Order 6 Rule 28 of the Civil Procedure Rules a point of law raised by pleadings may be disposed of at or after the hearing, and a trial Judge acts properly, in the interests of judicial economy, in directing that preliminary points of law raised late be addressed in written submissions and determined in the ruling rather than halting the hearing.

Legislation cited (1)

Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 Rule 28

Cases cited (1)

Mukisa Biscuits case

Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.