Wakilii

Kerilee Investments Ltd v Krone (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 227 of 2017)

Court of Appeal · [2017] UGCA 115 · 2017 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for an interim order of stay of execution pending determination of a substantive application for stay
Decision
Application for interim order of stay of execution dismissed with costs

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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 of stay of execution. Applying Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein, the Court held that an interim order requires a pending substantive application together with evidence of a serious and imminent threat of execution. The applicant adduced no convincing evidence of such a threat: no warrant of execution had been issued or even applied for, and the order in question was a self-executing temporary injunction. The Court found no justification for granting the order and dismissed the application with costs to the respondent.

Facts

The respondent had obtained a temporary injunction in High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 823 of 2017 (before Namundi J) ordering the applicant to vacate Nyamuliro Mines, restraining it from further management of the mine for the duration of the head suit, and directing it to remove its employees and allow the respondent to take possession. The applicant, dissatisfied, filed a Notice of Appeal and a substantive application for stay of execution (Civil Application No. 226 of 2017). Pending that application's determination, the applicant sought an interim order of stay, contending the respondent had instructed a bailiff to execute the order, that some 15,000 people derived a livelihood from the mine, and that it had invested over USD 2 million in the mine. The respondent argued there was no executable order capable of warranted execution, the injunction being self-executing, and that no bailiff had been named.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established a serious and imminent threat of execution justifying the grant of an interim order of stay of execution pending determination of the substantive application for stay.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Costs to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interim Order of Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
To obtain an interim order of stay of execution it suffices to show that a substantive application for stay is pending and that there is a serious and imminent threat of execution before the hearing of that substantive application; it is unnecessary to pre-empt consideration of matters relevant to the substantive application.
Civil Procedure — Interim Order of Stay — Evidence of Threat of Execution
A serious and imminent threat of execution must be established by evidence; the absence of a warrant of execution that has been issued or even applied for is fatal to an application for an interim order of stay of execution.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Judicature Act Cap. 13 s.12
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 43-10 Rule 2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 43-10 Rule 6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 43-10 Rule 42(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 43-10 Rule 44

Cases cited (4)

  • Commissioner Customs Uganda Revenue Authority v Kayumba Emily Ogenyi (Civil Application No. 62 of 2014)
  • Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein and Others (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
  • Joel Kato and Margrate Kato v Nalulu Nalwoga (Civil Application No. 12 of 2011)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v East African Property Holdings Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 144 of 2014)
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.