Tekereza & Others v Kyaligonza & Others (Civil Application 1284 of 2023)

Court of Appeal · [2024] UGCA 64 · 2024 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application to the Court of Appeal to review and set aside its own ruling striking out an earlier application, with an interim order to stay execution pending determination of a substantive stay application

Decision

Application for review allowed; Civil Application No. 1130 of 2023 reinstated and directed to be heard inter partes before another single judge

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

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 single judge allowed an application to review and set aside an earlier ruling that had struck out the applicants' interim-orders application for being filed in the Court of Appeal before being made in the High Court. The court found evidence that the High Court had declined or frustrated the applicants' efforts to be heard, which engaged Rule 42(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules empowering the court to entertain such an application notwithstanding that it was not first made to the High Court. Invoking the inherent power under Rule 2(2) and the principle from Ssekikubo that preserving the right to appeal serves the ends of justice, the court reinstated the struck-out application and directed it be heard inter partes before another single judge.

Facts

The applicants, administrators of an estate (and a related company), had filed Civil Application No. 1130 of 2023 in the Court of Appeal seeking interim orders to stay execution of High Court orders in Miscellaneous Cause No. 24 of 2023. That application was struck out on a preliminary objection that it ought first to have been made in the High Court. In responding to the objection, the applicants' counsel had erroneously referred to the wrong paragraph of the supporting affidavit as proof that the lower court had refused to entertain their interim-orders application, which misled the court into dismissing it as improperly filed. The applicants brought the present application to review and set aside that ruling, relying on evidence that the High Court at Masindi had in fact declined or frustrated their efforts to have the interim-orders application heard.

Issues

Whether the Court should review and set aside its ruling striking out Civil Application No. 1130 of 2023.
Whether the Court could entertain the matter under Rule 42(2) where the lower court had frustrated the applicants' efforts to have their application for interim orders heard.

Orders

Civil Application No. 1130 of 2023 is hereby reinstated.
The matter is to be heard inter partes before another single judge of this Court.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Inherent power of the Court of Appeal to review its own decision to attain the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process under Rule 2(2)

The Court of Appeal may exercise its inherent power under Rule 2(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules to review and set aside its own ruling where doing so is necessary to attain the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the court's process.

Civil Procedure — Interim orders and stay of execution — Rule 42(2) — Court may entertain an application not first made to the High Court where the lower court has declined or frustrated efforts to be heard

Notwithstanding the requirement that an application be made first in the High Court, Rule 42(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules permits the Court of Appeal to entertain such an application where there is evidence that the lower court declined or frustrated the applicant's efforts to have the matter heard.

Civil Procedure — Stay of execution — Interim orders preserve the status quo and protect the right of appeal as part of the ends of justice

Interim orders serve to preserve the status quo of the parties pending determination of a substantive application, and the preservation of a party's right of appeal speaks to the ends of justice.

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.42(2)
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.43
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.44(1)

Cases cited (2)

Hwan Sung Industries Ltd v Tadiq & 2 Others (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
Theodore Ssekikubo & 2 Others v Attorney General & 4 Others (Constitutional Application No. 4 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.