Ssajjabi v Muyizzi & Another (Civil Application 7 of 2022)

Supreme Court · [2022] UGSC 42 · 2022 Application Dismissed ✦ 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 the main application for stay of execution

Decision

Application for interim order of stay of execution dismissed for failure to establish a serious threat of execution

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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

Hearing the application as a single Justice, the Court held that although the application was incompetent — filed in the name of a deceased respondent and brought under the Civil Procedure Act, which does not extend to the Supreme Court (s.1) — it would invoke its inherent powers under rule 2(2) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules to overlook those defects and avoid a multiplicity of applications. On the merits, an interim stay requires a competent notice of appeal, a pending substantive application, and a serious threat of execution. The first two were met, but the applicant produced no strong evidence (such as a warrant of execution or notice to show cause) of an imminent threat. The application was dismissed.

Facts

The Court of Appeal had delivered judgment against the applicant in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2017, upholding High Court orders cancelling the applicant's leasehold title and directing that the land be registered in the name of the 2nd respondent. Dissatisfied, the applicant filed Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2020 in the Supreme Court, which had been heard and was pending judgment. He also filed a main application for stay of execution, together with the present application for an interim order of stay pending its determination. He averred that the land was being transferred, subdivided and sold to persons who were not parties to the suit, and that it could not be replaced once sold. The respondents, through an affidavit sworn by an attorney of the estate administrator, denied any threat of execution and stated they had taken no steps to execute the decree. The named 1st respondent, Samuel Muyizzi, had died in September 2017; his estate was administered by Catherine Namutebi Muyizzi.

Issues

Whether the application was a nullity for having been filed in the name of a person (Samuel Muyizzi) who had died before it was brought.
Whether the application was incompetent for having been brought under the Civil Procedure Act and Rules, which do not apply to proceedings of the Supreme Court.
Whether the deponent of the affidavit in reply had capacity to swear it on behalf of the administrator of the estate and on behalf of the corporate respondent.
Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of an interim order of stay of execution, in particular a serious threat of execution.

Orders

The application for an interim order of stay of execution is dismissed.
Costs to be in the cause of determining the main application.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Applicable Law in the Supreme Court — Inapplicability of the Civil Procedure Act

The Civil Procedure Act extends only to proceedings in the High Court and the magistrates' courts; applications for an injunction or a stay of execution in the Supreme Court are governed by the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules, and an application for such relief brought under the Civil Procedure Act and Rules is incompetent.

Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers — Overlooking Procedural Defects to Prevent Multiplicity of Applications

Under rule 2(2) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules the Court may invoke its inherent powers to make such orders as are necessary to achieve the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, and may overlook valid procedural objections — including that an application was filed in the name of a deceased party or under the wrong law — where striking it out would only lead to a fresh filing and an unwarranted multiplicity of applications.

Civil Procedure — Interim Order of Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant

Before granting an interim order of stay of execution a single Justice must be satisfied of three conditions: a competent notice of appeal, a pending substantive application for stay, and a serious threat of execution; for the interim relief it suffices to show a pending substantive application and a serious threat of execution without pre-empting the merits of the main application.

Civil Procedure — Interim Stay of Execution — Standard of Proof of a Serious Threat of Execution

A serious threat of execution must be established by strong evidence, such as a warrant of execution or a notice to show cause why execution should not issue; bare averments unsupported by such evidence are insufficient and an interim order will be declined where no strong evidence of imminent execution is shown.

Company Law — Authentication of Documents — Authority to Swear an Affidavit on Behalf of a Company

Under section 59 of the Companies Act a document or proceeding requiring authentication by a company may be signed by a director, secretary or other authorised officer; a person who is neither a member, director nor secretary, and who holds no valid authorisation or power of attorney from the company, has no capacity to swear an affidavit on its behalf, and a purported authorisation bearing no company stamp or seal and signed by a person not shown to be an authorised officer is of no effect.

Legislation cited (6)

Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.1
Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rules 1 and 2
Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules rule 2(2)
Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules rule 6(2)
Companies Act s.59

Cases cited (2)

Zubeda Mohammad and Another v Laila Kaka Wajja and Another (Civil Reference No. 7 of 2016)
Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein and Others (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)

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.