Wakilii

Ssekikubo & 4 Ors v Kamba & 3 Ors (Constitutional Application 3 of 2014)

Supreme Court · [2014] UGSC 11 · 2014 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for stay of execution and a temporary injunction pending appeal to the Supreme Court against a Constitutional Court decision.
Decision
Application allowed; stay of execution and an injunction granted pending determination of the appeal.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 Supreme Court held that the application satisfied the basic requirements of Rule 6(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules: a notice of appeal had been lodged and the unchallenged affidavit evidence showed an intended appeal raising serious constitutional issues with chances of success. The Court found the interest of justice demanded that the disputed issues be heard and determined on appeal, and that sufficient grounds existed to exercise its discretion. It accordingly granted a stay of execution of the Constitutional Court's orders of 21 February 2014 and an injunction restraining the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and Electoral Commission from implementing those orders, pending determination of the appeal.

Facts

Following the expulsion of the first four applicants from the National Resistance Movement party, the Speaker of Parliament declined to declare their parliamentary seats vacant. The present respondents brought consolidated constitutional petitions and applications challenging that position. On 21 February 2014 the Constitutional Court, by a majority of four to one, ordered the four members to vacate their seats, directed the Electoral Commission to conduct by-elections, and issued a permanent injunction barring their continued sitting. A decree was served and the Speaker declared the seats vacant. The applicants filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court and requested the record of proceedings, annexing a proposed memorandum of appeal raising nine grounds concerning the interpretation of Articles 83(1)(g), 86, 119 and 132(3) of the Constitution. They brought this notice of motion seeking to stay execution of the Constitutional Court's orders and to restrain implementation pending the appeal. An earlier related application (No. 04 of 2014) had already resulted in interim relief on 6 March 2014, after which the applicants had been allowed back into Parliament.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution and a temporary injunction satisfies the requirements of Rule 6(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules.
  2. Whether the applicants demonstrated sufficient grounds for the Court to exercise its discretion to stay execution and grant an injunction pending the determination of their appeal.

Orders

  • Stay of execution of the orders of the Constitutional Court dated 21st February 2014 and the consequential decree in respect of Constitutional Petitions Nos. 16, 19, 21 and 25 of 2013 is ordered.
  • An injunction is granted restraining the Speaker of Parliament, the Deputy Speaker of Parliament and the Electoral Commission from implementing the orders of the Constitutional Court until determination of the pending appeal or until further orders.
  • Everything possible must be done to ensure that the record of the pending appeal is served on each of the respondents as soon as possible.
  • Appropriate steps should be taken to have the appeal disposed of expeditiously.
  • The cost of this application shall abide the final determination of the appeal.
  • The orders granted on 6th March 2014 after the hearing of Constitutional Application No. 04 of 2014 shall lapse upon service of these orders on the institutions, persons and officers affected.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions under Rule 6(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules
Where a notice of appeal has been lodged in accordance with Rule 72, the Court may, under Rule 6(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules, order a stay of execution or an injunction as it considers just; the applicant must show, among other facts varying from case to case, that irreparable loss would result if a stay were not granted and that the appeal has a likelihood of success.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution and Injunction Pending Appeal — Exercise of Judicial Discretion
The grant of a stay of execution or an injunction pending appeal is a discretionary remedy decided on the facts of each case; where the interest of justice demands that serious disputed issues be heard and determined on appeal, the Court may exercise its discretion to preserve the status quo.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Threshold for Demonstrating Prospects of Appeal
At the stay-of-execution stage it is unnecessary to argue the merits of the intended appeal; it is sufficient that uncontradicted affidavit evidence and the proposed memorandum of appeal show that the appeal raises constitutional and legal issues warranting serious judicial consideration.

Legislation cited (13)

  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 81(2)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 83(1)(g)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 86
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 119(3)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 119(4)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 132(3)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.2(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.6(2)(b)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.42
  • Supreme Court Rules r.43(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.50
  • Supreme Court Rules r.51
  • Supreme Court Rules r.72

Cases cited (5)

  • Dr. Ahmed Muhammed Kasule v Greenland Bank in Receivership (Civil Application No. 7 of 2010)
  • National Housing & Construction Corporation v Kampala District Land Board (Civil Application No. 6 of 2002)
  • Akankwasa Damian v Uganda (Constitutional Application Nos. 7 & 9 of 2011)
  • John Ken Lukyamuzi v Attorney General & Electoral Commission (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (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.