Wakilii

MS Bashasha & Co Advocates v Tumwijukye & 15 Ors (Civil Application No. 70 of 2020)

Court of Appeal · [2020] UGCA 71 · 2020 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for an interim order of stay of execution pending disposal of a substantive application for stay of execution
Decision
Interim order of stay of execution granted pending disposal of the substantive application for stay (Civil Application No. 69 of 2020)

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (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

A single judge of the Court of Appeal granted an interim order staying execution of High Court orders pending disposal of the substantive application for stay. The court held that citing the wrong law (Judicature Act s.33 and the Civil Procedure Act, which do not govern Court of Appeal proceedings) was not a fundamental irregularity and could be cured by inserting the correct provisions (Judicature Act s.12(1) and Court of Appeal Rules rule 2(2)). Applying Hwang Sung Industries, the applicant met the conditions: a Notice of Appeal was lodged, a substantive application for stay was pending, and an unrebutted imminent threat of execution existed. The preliminary objections were declined for want of jurisdiction, being matters for the full bench.

Facts

Following High Court Civil Suit No. 207 of 1993, government was ordered to compensate persons wrongfully evicted from Kibale Forest Reserve, with the award later extended to 1097 evictees. Multiple advocates, attorneys and funders claimed entitlements totalling about 66% of the judgment debt, generating numerous applications. In HCMA No. 555 of 2018, Justice Lydia Mugambe dismissed the application but made orders directing payment of the suit money to claimants through M/S Mushabe, Munungu & Co. Advocates. M/S Bashasha & Co. Advocates, aggrieved, filed a Notice of Appeal and subsequently sought a stay of execution. After earlier applications were dismissed as prematurely filed and a High Court application was dismissed, M/S Bashasha filed Civil Application No. 69 of 2020 (substantive stay) and Civil Application No. 70 of 2020 (interim order). A Certificate of Order against Government and demand letters by Mushabe, Munungu & Co. demanding payment of over UGX 22 billion evidenced an imminent threat of execution.

Issues

  1. Whether citing the wrong law in the Notice of Motion rendered the application incompetent.
  2. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of an interim order of stay of execution.
  3. Whether the preliminary objections regarding approbation and reprobation and lack of valid instructions could be determined by a single judge.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Interim Order issued staying execution and enforcement of the orders of the High Court in HCMA No. 555 of 2018 until the disposal of the substantive application Civil Application No. 69 of 2020, or until further orders of Court.
  • The Registrar urged to fix the hearing of Civil Application No. 69 of 2020 at the earliest possible time.
  • Costs of this application to abide the outcome of the substantive application for stay of execution.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Citing Wrong Law — Curable Irregularity
Where an application cites no law or the wrong law, but the court has jurisdiction to grant the order sought, the irregularity is not fundamental and may be ignored and the correct law inserted.
Civil Procedure — Interim Order of Stay of Execution — Conditions
To obtain an interim order of stay of execution, an applicant need only show that a Notice of Appeal has been lodged, that a substantive application for stay is pending, and that there is a serious threat of execution before the hearing of the substantive application.
Civil Procedure — Interim Order — Distinction from Substantive Application
An interim order application is distinct from the substantive application for stay; its purpose is to preserve the parties' rights and prevent the substantive application from being rendered nugatory, and it must not pre-empt the merits reserved for the full bench.
Civil Procedure — Single Judge Jurisdiction — Preliminary Objections
A single judge lacks jurisdiction to determine preliminary objections that go to the root of the appeal, such as locus standi and validity of instructions; these are properly raised by cross-appeal before the full bench.
Civil Procedure — Single Judge Powers — Court of Appeal
A single judge of the Court of Appeal may exercise any power vested in the Court of Appeal in any interlocutory cause or matter, including the grant of an interim order of stay of execution under section 12(1) of the Judicature Act and rule 2(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.12(1)
  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
  • Civil Procedure Act s.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 43 rule 4
  • Court of Appeal Rules SI 13-10 rule 2(2)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)
  • Government Proceedings Act Cap 77 s.19

Cases cited (2)

  • Saggu Vs Roadmaster Cycles (U) Ltd [2002]1 EA 258 (CAU)
  • Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein and Others (Civil Application No. 149 of 2008)
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.