Wakilii

Lubega v Attorney General & 2 Ors [2015] UGSC 10

Supreme Court · 2015 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Supreme Court 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 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 staying execution of Constitutional Court orders pending a substantive stay application, the single Justice held that an applicant need only show that a notice of appeal has been lodged, that a substantive stay application is pending, that there is a serious threat of execution, and that the application was filed without undue delay. The respondents' objections — that no appeal lay as of right, that the applicant had lost locus through contempt, and that the intended appeal had weak prospects — went to the merits of the substantive application and could not be determined at the interim stage. All criteria being satisfied, the interim order was granted.

Facts

The applicant and the third respondent had long disputed ownership of property comprised in LRV 3958 Folio 10, Plot 50-52, Nakivubo Road, Kampala, generating numerous High Court suits since 2006. Following a presidential directive of 20 July 2011 to rectify title anomalies and cancel wrongly acquired certificates of title, the applicant filed Constitutional Petition No. 37 of 2011 challenging the directives, together with consolidated Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 31 and 32 of 2011 seeking injunctive relief. On 29 April 2015 the Constitutional Court dismissed the consolidated applications with costs, ordered the applicant to restore the status quo existing before the petition, and quashed the 2014 eviction of the third respondent as illegal. The applicant lodged a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court and filed a substantive application for stay of execution (Misc. Application No. 12 of 2015) alongside the present application for an interim stay. The third respondent had applied for partial execution and drafted a warrant for vacant possession instructing bailiffs to evict the applicant.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for the grant of an interim order of stay of execution.
  2. Whether the respondents' objections that the application was incompetent, that the applicant lacked locus by reason of contempt, and that the intended appeal lacked merit could be determined at the interim stage.

Orders

  • An interim order staying the execution of the orders of the Constitutional Court in Consolidated Misc. Application Nos. 31 and 32 delivered on 29 April 2015 is issued, until the final determination of the substantive application for stay of execution or until further orders of the Court.
  • The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the substantive application for stay of execution.
  • The Registrar is directed to cause-list Misc. Application No. 12 of 2015 at the next convenient session.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interim Order of Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
For the grant of an interim order of stay of execution it suffices to show that a notice of appeal has been lodged, that a substantive application for stay is pending, that there is a serious threat of execution before the hearing of the substantive application, and that the application was filed without undue delay; the more demanding conditions governing a substantive stay need not be considered.
Civil Procedure — Interim Order of Stay — Objections Going to Merits Deferred
Objections that touch on the competence of the intended appeal, the applicant's locus, or the likelihood of success of the appeal go to the merits of the substantive application for stay and are not to be determined at the interim stage, as deciding them would pre-empt consideration of matters reserved for the full Court.
Civil Procedure — Supreme Court Rules — Discretion to Preserve Right of Appeal
Rule 2(2) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules confers a wide discretion to make such orders as may be necessary to achieve the ends of justice, one of which is to preserve a party's right of appeal by maintaining the status quo pending determination of the main issues by the full Court.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.42
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.43(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.50
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.51
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.72
  • Judicature Act s.6

Cases cited (13)

  • Moses Masekenyu Ikagobya v Isaya Kalya and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 9 of 2014)
  • Bitamisi Namudu v Rwabuganda Godfrey (Civil Application No. 11 of 2014)
  • SINBA (K) Ltd and Others v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (Civil Application No. 5 of 2014)
  • Theodore Ssekikubo and 3 Others v Attorney General and 4 Others (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] All ER 569
  • Kitende Appolonaries Kalibogha and Others v Eleonora Wismer (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2010)
  • Kyambogo University v Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 4 of 2014)
  • Yakobo Senkungu and Others v Cresensio Mukasa (Civil Application No. 5 of 2013)
  • Guiliano Garigio v Claudio Casadio (Civil Application No. 3 of 2013)
  • Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
  • Editor in Chief of the New Vision Newspaper v Jeremiah Ntabgoba (Civil Application No. 63 of 2004)
  • Attorney General v Fuelex Uganda Ltd (Constitutional Application No. 4 of 2014)
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.