Wakilii

Miao v Namaganda Limited (Civil Application 58 of 2024)

Court of Appeal · [2024] UGCA 85 · 2024 Preliminary Objection Upheld; Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal to set aside dismissal of an appeal, reinstate the appeal, and stay execution pending a civil reference
Decision
Application dismissed; preliminary objection upheld for want of jurisdiction and stay of execution refused

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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

Sitting as a single Justice, the Court held it had no jurisdiction to set aside the dismissal of, or reinstate, Civil Appeal No. 250 of 2022, because under section 12(1) of the Judicature Act a single Justice may only exercise the Court's powers in interlocutory matters; those orders are the remit of a full bench of three Justices. The preliminary objection was therefore upheld. On the stay of execution, the applicant failed to place any material before the Court establishing a prima facie case with a likelihood of success or irreparable damage. The application was dismissed, with costs to abide the outcome of the reference.

Facts

The applicant lodged Civil Appeal No. 250 of 2022 against DFCU Bank and the respondent. On the respondent's application, the applicant was ordered to deposit security for costs and security for past costs in High Court Civil Suit No. 78 of 2016. The applicant filed Civil Reference No. 28 of 2023 challenging that decision, which remained unheard. The applicant later discovered that, on 29 January 2024, orders were made dismissing the appeal for failure to deposit the required security. The respondent took steps to commence execution proceedings. The applicant brought this application before a single Justice seeking to set aside the dismissal order, reinstate the appeal, and stay execution pending the reference. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that a single Justice lacked jurisdiction to grant the first two orders, which could only be made by a full bench.

Issues

  1. Whether a single Justice of the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to set aside the dismissal of a civil appeal and to reinstate that appeal.
  2. Whether the applicant established sufficient grounds to justify the grant of a stay of execution pending determination of the civil reference.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is upheld.
  • The application is dismissed.
  • The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the Reference.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction of a Single Justice of the Court of Appeal — Limits to interlocutory matters
Under section 12(1) of the Judicature Act, a single Justice of the Court of Appeal may exercise the powers of the Court only in interlocutory causes or matters, and accordingly has no jurisdiction to set aside the decision of another single Justice or to reinstate a dismissed appeal; such orders are the remit of a full bench of three Justices.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for grant
An applicant for a stay of execution must establish a prima facie case with a likelihood of success on appeal, that irreparable damage will be suffered or the appeal rendered nugatory if a stay is refused, and that the application was brought without delay; where the first two are not established the court considers the balance of convenience only if it is in doubt.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Likelihood of success — Evidential burden
Likelihood of success is the most important consideration on an application for a stay of execution, and the applicant must place before the court material that goes beyond a mere statement that the appeal has a likelihood of success; a bare assertion in an affidavit is insufficient.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Irreparable damage — Meaning and proof
Irreparable damage means damage that cannot be undone or atoned for in monetary terms; where the inconvenience likely to be suffered can be sufficiently compensated by an award of damages, the requirement is not satisfied and the applicant bears the burden of proving it.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Judicature Act s.12(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 43
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 44
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 76

Cases cited (7)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Dr. Ahmed Muhammed Kisuule v Greenland Bank (In Liquidation) (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2020)
  • Gashumba Maniraguha v Samuel Nkundiye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2015)
  • Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Osman Kassim v Century Bottling Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2019)
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All E.R. 504
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v National Social Security Fund (Civil Application No. 43 of 2023)
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.