Wakilii

Mabarizi Kiwanuka v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 39 of 2022)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 225 · 2022 Application Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution and reference from the decision of a single Justice of Appeal, heard together
Decision
Stay of execution of the fine granted; application to stay imprisonment dismissed and reference dismissed; applicant to continue serving 18-month sentence

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (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 granted a stay of execution of the UGX 300 million fine but refused to stay the applicant's 18-month imprisonment for contempt of court. The imprisonment order arose from a separate ruling of 15 February 2022 against which no notice of appeal had been lodged, so the rule 6(2)(b) precondition was not met. The applicant failed to prove a prima facie case, irreparable damage, or that the balance of convenience favoured him. Once arrested and committed to prison, the application to stay imprisonment was overtaken by events as execution was complete. The reference against the single justice's decision was dismissed; the court affirmed it is not a court of first instance for enforcing constitutional rights.

Facts

During High Court proceedings in HCMC No. 287 of 2021, the applicant posted statements on Twitter and Facebook impugning the presiding judge and the judiciary. The Attorney General brought a contempt application (HCMA No. 843 of 2021), and on 27 January 2022 Ssekaana, J declared the applicant in contempt, fined him UGX 300 million and issued a strong warning. The applicant then made further disparaging posts about Ssekaana, J. On a fresh complaint, the court on 15 February 2022 found a second contempt and ordered his arrest and 18 months' imprisonment. The applicant was arrested on 21 February 2022 and committed to Kitalya Prison. He filed Civil Application No. 39 of 2022 seeking to stay all orders pending appeal, having lodged a notice of appeal only against the 27 January 2022 decision. No notice of appeal was filed against the 15 February 2022 imprisonment ruling. He also referenced the single justice's earlier ruling in Civil Application No. 40 of 2022.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for an order to stay execution of the High Court orders pending appeal.
  2. Whether the order for the applicant's imprisonment could be stayed where no notice of appeal had been lodged against the ruling imposing it.
  3. Whether the single Justice of Appeal erred in holding he lacked jurisdiction to suspend the applicant's imprisonment and release him.
  4. Whether the prayer to stay execution of the committal order was overtaken by events upon the applicant's arrest and imprisonment.

Orders

  • Execution of the fine of UGX 300,000,000 issued against the applicant on 27 January 2022 is stayed pending the hearing of his appeal.
  • The applicant shall continue to serve his sentence of 18 months imposed on 15 February 2022 until it expires or until further orders of a court with competent jurisdiction.
  • Civil Reference No. 91 of 2022 is dismissed.
  • The informal application to stay imprisonment is dismissed with costs to be paid by the applicant.
  • Costs of the reference shall be in the cause.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Precondition of a Notice of Appeal under Rule 6(2)(b)
An order to stay execution under rule 6(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules may only be granted where a notice of appeal has been lodged against the specific decision sought to be stayed; a notice of appeal against a related but distinct ruling does not satisfy the requirement.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Criteria for Grant
An applicant for stay of execution pending appeal must establish that the intended appeal has a likelihood of success or a prima facie case, that irreparable damage will result or the appeal will be rendered nugatory, where the balance of convenience lies, and that the application was made without delay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Application Overtaken by Completed Execution
Where execution of an order has been completed, such as the arrest and delivery of a person to prison, an application to stay that execution is overtaken by events and there is nothing left to stay; the proper remedy is to appeal or apply to set aside the order.
Contempt of Court — Right to be Heard — Effect of Deliberate Non-Attendance
A contemnor who is aware of a hearing but chooses not to attend, instead responding in writing and through counsel, cannot complain of denial of the right to be heard; he is taken to have been accorded a fair hearing.
Recusal of Judicial Officers — Procedure under Legal Notice No. 7 of 2019 — Right of Appeal after Determination
Where a judicial officer declines to recuse himself, the reasons must be noted and the matter proceeds; an appeal arising from the refusal to recuse may only be made after the substantive matter has been determined.
Civil Procedure — Notices of Appeal — Separate Decisions from the Same File
Where a court makes separate decisions arising from the same file on different dates and based on distinct causes of action, a separate notice of appeal must be lodged in respect of each, though a single memorandum of appeal may later be filed in respect of both.
Court of Appeal — Jurisdiction — Not a Court of First Instance for Enforcement of Fundamental Rights
The Court of Appeal is not a court of first instance for the enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms under Article 50 of the Constitution and the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019, except when sitting as the Constitutional Court; such jurisdiction is vested in the High Court and subordinate courts.

Legislation cited (24)

  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 44(c)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 50
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 134(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 154(2)
  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.6(2)(b)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.42(2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.43
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.44
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.55
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.76
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.82
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.87(1)(i)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.2(k)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.34(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.42(2)(e)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.43(3)(b)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.77(1)
  • Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 s.3
  • Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 s.4
  • Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 s.5
  • Constitution (Recusal of Judicial Officers) (Practice) Directions 2019 (Legal Notice No. 7 of 2019)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 33(2)

Cases cited (11)

  • Gashumba v Nkundiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
  • Tusingwire v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2010)
  • Theodore Ssekikubo v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Michael Mabikke v Law Development Centre (Civil Application No. 14 of 2015)
  • J.W.R Kazoora v M.L.S. Rukuba (Civil Application No. 49 of 1991)
  • Dawaru v Angumale (Miscellaneous Application No. 96 of 2016)
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
  • Chief B Alannah & Others v Mr Kanayo Kpolokuuu & Others NWLR Part 1507, at page 1
  • Attorney General of Uganda v Media Legal Defence Initiative (Consolidated Applications No. 4 and 6 of 2018)
  • China Henan International Corporation Group Company Ltd v Kyabahwa (Civil Application No. 30 of 2021)
  • Erias Lukwago v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2015)
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.