Wakilii

SWT Tanners Limited & 13 Others v Commissioner General, Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Application 27 of 2022)

Supreme Court · [2022] UGSC 2 · 2022 Application Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for an interim order of stay of execution pending the hearing of a substantive application for stay before the Supreme Court
Decision
Interim order staying execution granted pending the hearing of the substantive application for stay

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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

On an application for an interim order staying execution of a Court of Appeal decree pending the hearing of a substantive stay application, the Supreme Court held the application was properly before it, the earlier similar application in the Court of Appeal having been withdrawn. Applying Hwang Sung Industries, the Court held that for an interim stay it suffices to show a pending substantive application and a serious threat of execution before that application is heard. A notice of appeal had been filed and a demand note issued commencing execution. Satisfied that execution would render the substantive application nugatory, the Court granted the interim stay.

Facts

The applicants were the unsuccessful parties in Civil Appeal No. 172 of 2019 in the Court of Appeal, whose judgment and decree in favour of the respondent were delivered on 16 September 2022. The Court of Appeal also held that the injunction orders pending the appeal had lapsed. Dissatisfied, the applicants lodged a notice of appeal and filed a substantive application for stay of execution in the Supreme Court. The respondent had initiated the execution process and issued a demand note to the applicants. The applicants brought this application for an interim order of stay pending the hearing of the substantive application, contending that execution would render the substantive application nugatory. The respondent objected that a similar application was pending in the Court of Appeal (Misc. Application No. 701 of 2022), but the applicants showed, by a notice of withdrawal, that it had been withdrawn.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for an interim order of stay of execution is properly before the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether there are grounds supporting the grant of an interim order of stay of execution.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The application is allowed.
  • An interim order of stay of execution is granted.
  • Costs of the application to abide the result of the substantive application.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements for an Interim Order of Stay
For the grant of an interim order of stay of execution it suffices to show that a substantive application for stay is pending and that there is a serious threat of execution before the hearing of that substantive application; it is not necessary to pre-empt the matters to be considered in deciding the substantive application.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Concurrent Applications in Different Courts
An application for stay of execution is properly before the court where an earlier similar application filed in another court has been withdrawn, leaving no existing application of a similar nature pending elsewhere.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 r.42(1)
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.33

Cases cited (2)

  • Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajfin Hussein and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
  • Singh v Runda Coffee Estates Ltd [1966] EA 263
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.