Wakilii

Mabikke v Law Development Centre (Misc Civil Application 14 of 2015)

Supreme Court · [2020] UGSC 4 · 2020 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for stay of execution pending appeal from a Court of Appeal judgment
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed.

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

The Supreme Court restated the conditions for a stay of execution pending appeal: a prima facie case with likelihood of success, irreparable damage or the appeal being rendered nugatory, the balance of convenience, and that the application be brought without delay. Examining the lower court judgments, the Court found they made no orders against the applicant capable of causing irreparable damage; the cancellation of his diploma flowed from the separate Dr. Pamela Committee, to whose proceedings he had voluntarily submitted after filing the application. Having done so, he was barred from pursuing the application, which had been overtaken by events. The intended appeal had no likelihood of success and a stay would preserve nothing. The application was dismissed.

Facts

The applicant and other students were awarded Post Graduate Diplomas in Legal Practice by the respondent, the Law Development Centre. Following complaints of examination malpractice for the academic years 2004/2005 to 2010/2011, the respondent's management commissioned a forensic audit and later established a committee to inquire into specific suspected cases. In 2013 the applicant and others sought judicial review in the High Court to quash the audit report and stop the inquiry committee; the High Court declined the orders and instead directed that a properly constituted committee be formed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the resulting appeal. The applicant lodged a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court and brought this application for stay of execution. After filing the application, the applicant appeared with counsel before the newly constituted Dr. Pamela Committee, which heard him and then cancelled his Diploma on finding he had not passed the Bar Course. The respondent contended the lower courts made no executable orders and that the application had been overtaken by events.

Issues

  1. Whether the intended appeal had a prima facie case with a likelihood of success.
  2. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable loss, or the appeal be rendered nugatory, if the stay of execution were not granted.
  3. Where the balance of convenience lay between the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant Pending Appeal
A stay of execution pending appeal is discretionary and will be granted only where the applicant establishes a prima facie case or likelihood of success on appeal, that irreparable damage will be suffered or the appeal rendered nugatory if a stay is refused, and, failing those, where the balance of convenience lies; the application must also be instituted without delay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Assessing Likelihood of Success
To determine whether an intended appeal has a likelihood of success the court must examine the judgments of the lower courts to understand why the suit or appeal was decided against the applicant; otherwise the court would be obliged to grant every application for a stay and would encourage frivolous appeals brought merely to delay satisfaction of a judgment.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — No Executable Order and Application Overtaken by Events
A stay of execution cannot be granted where the lower courts made no order against the applicant capable of causing irreparable damage and where the conduct sought to be restrained has already occurred, since a stay would preserve nothing and the law does not operate in a vacuum.
Civil Procedure — Approbation and Reprobation — Submitting to a Process Then Challenging It
An applicant who voluntarily submits to the proceedings of a tribunal or committee is thereafter barred from pursuing an application designed to restrain that very process, and may not approbate and reprobate the same proceedings.

Legislation cited (22)

  • Judicature Act s.4
  • Judicature Act s.6(1)
  • Judicature Act s.7
  • Judicature Act s.8(1)
  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Judicature Act s.38
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 26
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 40(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 42
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 44
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 45
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 50
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Directions r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Directions r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Directions r.42(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Directions r.42(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Directions r.43
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Directions r.50(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Directions r.72

Cases cited (10)

  • Anena Cyramid vs Ethian [1925] ALLER 504
  • Robert Kavuma v M/s Hotel International (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1990)
  • Hon Theodore Sekikubo & Ors v Attorney General & Anor (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • R v Electricity Commissioners [1924] 1 KB 171
  • Nester Byamugisha , Akampulira vs LDC
  • Miriam Kuteesa v Edith Nantumbwe (Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 2014)
  • J.W.R Kazoora v M.L.S Rukuba (Civil Application No. 49 of 1991)
  • Sheikh Muhamed Kisuule v Greenland Bank (in liquidation) (Civil Application No. 7 of 2010)
  • Akankawasa Damian v Uganda (Constitutional Application No. 709 of 2011)
  • J.W.R Kazoora v M.L.S Rukuba (Civil Application No. 49 of 1991)
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.