Ddamulira v Serunjogi and Another (Civil Application 1200 of 2023)

Court of Appeal · [2024] UGCA 98 · 2024 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application before a single Justice of Appeal for an interim order of stay of execution pending determination of a substantive stay application

Decision

Interim order of stay of execution granted pending determination of the substantive application (Civil Application No. 1199 of 2023)

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 applicant sought an interim order restraining the respondents from executing the decree in Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2019 pending determination of his substantive stay-of-execution application (Civil Application No. 1199 of 2023). Sitting as a single judge, the Court held that an interim stay requires a pending substantive application, a notice of appeal (a sine qua non) and an imminent threat of execution. The respondents' extracted decree, taxed bill of costs, application for execution, notice to show cause and commenced construction established an imminent threat of execution and alienation. Rule 41 of the Supreme Court Rules required the application to be made first to the Court of Appeal. The interim order was granted to preserve the status quo.

Facts

Judgment was entered against the applicant in Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2019. On 11 April 2022 he lodged a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, and an application for extension of time to file the memorandum and record of appeal was pending there. In the meantime the respondents extracted the decree, filed a bill of costs taxed at Ushs. 32,069,100, applied for execution, and obtained a notice to show cause why execution (including a warrant of arrest) should not issue. They also sought to execute the High Court decree for taxed costs, special damages of Ushs. 50 million, general damages and interest, and had commenced construction on the suit property — approximately one acre of Kabaka's land at Badongo Zone LC1, Salaama parish, Makindye division, Kampala. The applicant filed a substantive stay application (Civil Application No. 1199 of 2023) and sought the present interim order to preserve the status quo pending its determination.

Issues

Whether the application for an interim order of stay of execution was properly before the Court.
Whether there was an imminent threat of execution of the judgment decree in Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2019 before determination of the substantive application.

Orders

An interim order is issued restraining the Respondents, their agents, employees, assignees or any persons claiming or deriving authority therefrom from taking any steps or actions in execution of the judgment decree arising from Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2019 pending the determination of Civil Application No. 1199 of 2023.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interim Orders — Conditions for grant of interim stay of execution

For an application for an interim order of stay of execution to succeed there must be a substantive application for the same relief in respect of a pending appeal, the existence of a notice of appeal being a sine qua non, and an imminent threat of execution of the lower court's orders before determination of the substantive application.

Civil Procedure — Interim Orders — Preservation of the status quo and right of appeal as an end of justice

The grant of an interim injunctive relief is an exercise of the court's inherent power under Rule 2(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules to make orders necessary for attaining the ends of justice, and the preservation of a party's right of appeal by maintaining the status quo until the substantive application is heard speaks to those ends of justice.

Civil Procedure — Concurrent Jurisdiction — Order of recourse between the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court

Where there is a pending appeal before the Supreme Court, Rule 41 of the Supreme Court Rules requires that an application for interlocutory orders capable of being made to either court be made to the Court of Appeal first, recourse to the Supreme Court being available only in the exceptional circumstances under Rule 41(2).

Civil Procedure — Interim Orders — Scope of inquiry of single Justice

On an application for interim injunctive relief the court is not at liberty to interrogate the merits of the substantive application pending before the fully constituted court or the issues for determination on the appeal.

Legislation cited (7)

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(1)(2)
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.44(1)
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I. 13-11 r.41
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I. 13-11 r.41(2)

Cases cited (8)

Zubeda Mohammed and Another v Laila Kaka Waiia and Another (Civil Reference No. 7 of 2016)
Faustino Ntambara v Jack Kityo Segawole (Civil Application No. 150 of 2021)
Matthew Rukikaire v Incafex Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2015)
Manuragha Gashumba v Sam Nkundiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
Theodore Ssekikubo and 2 Others v Attorney General and 4 Others (Constitutional Application No. 4 of 2014)
Uganda Revenue Authority v Nsubuga Guster and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2018)
Patrick Kaumba Wiltshire v Ismail Dabule (Civil Application No. 3 of 2018)
Hwan Sung Industries Ltd v Toidin Hussein and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 19 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.