Wakilii

National Housing & Construction Corporation v Kampala District Land Board & Anor [2007] UGSC 2

Supreme Court · 2007 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Single-justice application by notice of motion for an interim order staying execution of a Supreme Court judgment pending determination of a substantive stay application
Decision
Application for interim stay of execution dismissed with costs

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 a single-justice application for an interim stay of execution pending a substantive stay application, the Court held the application improper and premature. Rule 6 of the Rules of the Supreme Court applies only where an appeal is pending, which was not the case. Even assuming the Court's earlier judgment might be reviewable under Rule 2(2), it was improper to seek a stay where no application for execution had been made and no decree embodying the Court's decision had been approved. The authorities cited concerned stays pending appeals or applications to recall judgments and were not relevant. Article 126(2)(e) did not assist the applicant. The application was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The first respondent had sued the applicant bank, the second respondent and four others in the High Court, which dismissed the suit; the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed both decisions and awarded the first respondent shs. 200 million as aggravated damages with other consequential orders. The first respondent prepared a draft decree which the applicant's advocates declined to approve in full. The advocates filed an application (No. 18 of 2007) seeking a stay of execution and rectification of aspects of the judgment. The applicant bank separately brought this notice of motion seeking an interim order staying execution of the judgment until the disposal of Civil Application No. 17 of 2007. At the hearing no application for execution had yet been made by the decree-holder, and no decree embodying the Court's decision had been approved or settled.

Issues

  1. Whether an application for stay of execution under Rule 6 of the Rules of the Supreme Court can be entertained where no appeal is pending in the Court.
  2. Whether an interim stay of execution may be granted where no application for execution has been made and no decree embodying the Court's decision has been settled or approved.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Rule 6 Rules of the Supreme Court — Requirement of a Pending Appeal
An application for stay of execution under Rule 6 of the Rules of the Supreme Court can only be entertained where there is an appeal pending in the Court; absent a pending appeal the rule does not apply.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Prematurity — Absence of Execution Application and Settled Decree
An application for an interim stay of execution is premature and improper where no application for execution has been made by the decree-holder and no decree embodying the court's decision has yet been settled or approved.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution — Substantive Justice
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution does not validate an application for stay of execution that is procedurally improper and brought on speculation without a real likelihood of execution or consequential injustice.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.2(2)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.6
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.42
  • Constitution of Uganda art.126(2)(e)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.48 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.39 r.4(3)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.18 r.2(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.101

Cases cited (13)

  • T. M. K. Vs. Jack Businge and 2 others (Fortportal High Court Civil Misc. application No. DR. MFP 2 of 1992)
  • Design Group Association Vs. Bank of Uganda HCC No. 34 of 1990
  • Horizon Coaches Ltd v Mutabazi and 3 others (Civil Application No. 21 of 2001)
  • Wilson Mukiibi v James Semusambwa (Civil Application No. 9 of 2003)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Atabya Agencies Ltd (Civil Application No. 31 of 2004)
  • Haji J. Achikule v A. R. Nakaye (Civil Application No. 27 of 1994)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Uganda Bottlers Ltd (Civil Application No. 25 of 1995)
  • Francis Sembuya v All Port Freight (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 15 of 1998)
  • Idah Iterura v Joyce Muguta (Civil Application No. 2 of 2006)
  • Zaituna Kawuma v G. Mwaluram (Civil Application No. 3 of 1992)
  • Adam Vassiliadis v Libya Arab (U) Bank for Foreign Trade and Development Ltd (Civil Application No. 28 of 1992)
  • Salim Jamal & 2 others v Uganda Oxygen Ltd & another (Civil Application No. 13 of 1997)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businghye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
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.