Wakilii

Ddamulira v Serunjogi & Another (Civil Appeal 12 of 2019; Civil Application 1199 of 2023)

Court of Appeal · [2024] UGCA 99 · 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 application for stay of execution
Decision
Interim order granted restraining execution pending determination of the substantive application for stay of execution

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

On an application for an interim order pending determination of a substantive stay of execution application, the single Justice held the application was properly before the Court of Appeal: where an appeal is pending in the Supreme Court, rule 41 of the Supreme Court Rules requires interlocutory applications to be made first to the Court of Appeal. The conditions for interim relief were satisfied — a pending substantive application, a notice of appeal (a sine qua non), and an imminent threat of execution shown by the extracted decree, taxed costs, execution proceedings, a notice to show cause, and construction on the suit property. To serve the ends of justice and preserve the status quo, an interim order restraining execution was granted.

Facts

Judgment was entered against the applicant in Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2019. On 22 April 2022 he filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court (lodged 11 April 2022 per the supporting affidavit), and an application to extend time to file the memorandum and record of appeal was pending there. The respondents extracted a decree, taxed a bill of costs at Ushs. 32,069,100, applied for execution, and obtained a notice to show cause why 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 to attach the suit property — approximately one acre of Kabaka's land at Badongo Zone LC1, Salaama parish, Makindye division, Kampala. The applicant alleged the respondents had commenced construction on the suit property. The applicant filed a substantive application for stay of execution (Civil Application No. 1199 of 2023) and this application for interim orders to preserve the status quo.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for an interim order of stay of execution was properly before the Court of Appeal.
  2. 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 for stay of execution.

Orders

  • An interim order 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 — Stay of Execution — Conditions for an Interim Order
An interim order of stay of execution requires a pending substantive application for the same relief in respect of a pending appeal, an imminent threat of execution of the lower court's orders before determination of that substantive application, and the existence of a notice of appeal, which is a sine qua non.
Civil Procedure — Concurrent Jurisdiction — Interlocutory Applications Where an Appeal is Pending in the Supreme Court
Where an appeal is pending before the Supreme Court, rule 41 of the Supreme Court Rules requires an application for interlocutory orders to be made first to the Court of Appeal, recourse to the Supreme Court being available only in the exceptional circumstances delineated in rule 41(2).
Civil Procedure — Interim Relief — Scope of a Single Justice's Inquiry
A single Justice hearing an application for interim injunctive relief is not at liberty to interrogate the merits of the substantive application pending before the fully constituted Court or the issues for determination on appeal; the purpose of the interim order is to preserve the status quo and the parties' right of appeal so as to serve the ends of justice.

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 & Another v Laila Kaka Waiia & Another (Civil Reference No. 7 of 2016)
  • Faustino Ntambara v Jack Kityo Segawole (Civil Application No. 150 of 2021)
  • Matthew Rukikaire v Incafex Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2015)
  • Manuraguha Gashumba v Sam Nkundiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
  • Theodore Ssekikubo & 2 Others v Attorney General & 4 Others (Constitutional Application No. 4 of 2014)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Nsubuga Guster & 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 & 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.