Hamir v Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (Civil Application 1092 of 2023)

Court of Appeal · [2024] UGCA 263 · 2024 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution pending appeal

Decision

Stay of execution granted until determination of the pending appeal

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

On an application for a stay of execution pending appeal, the single Justice held that the applicant had satisfied the established conditions: the lodged appeal raised serious questions amounting to a prima facie appeal; there was a serious and imminent threat of execution evidenced by a taxed bill of costs, a notice to show cause and a warrant of arrest; the balance of convenience favoured the applicant, who resided and carried on business on the suit land; and the application had been brought without undue delay. The Court accordingly exercised its discretion under rule 6(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules and granted a stay until the appeal is determined, with costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Facts

The respondent, through its agent, invited the public to take up space on its land in Soroti and build lock-ups to generate income for the mosque, on conditions including that allottees would not assign or sublet without the respondent's approval. The applicant, a non-Muslim, was not an original allottee but acquired two lock-ups and assumed the rights of the first allottees, occupying and developing them without the respondent's approval. He was charged higher rent than his Muslim co-tenants, which he considered discriminatory, and stopped paying. The respondent terminated the lease and demanded vacant possession. The applicant and three others unsuccessfully sued for breach of contract in Civil Suit No. 10 of 2018, while the respondent succeeded on a counterclaim for trespass. The applicant appealed and sought a stay of execution in the High Court, which was dismissed, prompting this application. There was a taxed bill of costs, a notice to show cause and a warrant of arrest against the applicant.

Issues

Whether the applicant adduced sufficient reasons to justify the grant of a stay of execution pending the determination of his appeal.

Orders

An order of stay of execution is granted until the appeal is determined.
Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Jurisdiction and Discretion

Under rule 6(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules a single Justice has discretion, in civil proceedings where a notice of appeal has been lodged in accordance with rule 76, to order a stay of execution on such terms as are just, and that discretion must be exercised judicially and not capriciously so as not to prevent a party from pursuing an appeal that would otherwise be rendered nugatory.

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Prima Facie Appeal

At the stay stage the court does not consider the merits of the appeal; it is sufficient that the appeal has been lodged in accordance with the rules and raises serious questions for consideration, establishing a prima facie appeal.

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Threat of Execution and Nugatory Appeal

An applicant must establish a serious and imminent threat of execution such that, if a stay is not granted, the applicant will suffer irreparable damage or the appeal will be rendered nugatory; evidence of a taxed bill of costs, a notice to show cause and a warrant of arrest proves such a threat.

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Balance of Convenience

Where a prima facie appeal and a threat of execution are shown, the court weighs the balance of convenience, and a stay will be granted where refusal would inflict greater hardship on the applicant than it would avoid for the respondent.

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Application Without Undue Delay

An application for a stay of execution must be brought without undue delay; an application filed shortly after the applicant learns of the imminent threat of execution satisfies this requirement.

Legislation cited (5)

Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.2(2)
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.6(2)(b)
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.43(1)
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.44(1)
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.76

Cases cited (4)

Lawrence Erin Properties Ltd v Cheshire County Council [1997] 2 All ER 446
Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkundiye (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2015)
Kyambogo University v Prof Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 5 of 2013)

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.