Wakilii

Adumo & Another v Basiima & 2 Others (Civil Application 27 of 2023)

Supreme Court · [2024] UGSC 10 · 2024 Referred to Full Panel ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for stay of execution, listed before a single Judge of the Supreme Court
Decision
Substantive application for stay of execution referred to the full panel of the Supreme Court for hearing and determination; oral application for an interim stay declined.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 stay of execution of the decree in Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2021, the single Judge held that, by virtue of Rule 50(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules, an application for a stay of execution must be heard by the full Court and not a single Judge. He therefore declined jurisdiction and directed the Registrar to reschedule the application for determination before the full bench. Counsel's oral application for an interim stay was declined because, contrary to Rule 42(1), all applications must be made by motion stating the grounds; an oral application was not properly before the Court. The substantive application was cause-listed for hearing before the full panel.

Facts

The matter arises from this Court's decision in Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2021, in which the appeal was determined in favour of the 1st respondent, who represented 1,568 former workers of the Coffee Marketing Board seeking terminal benefits following retrenchment. The applicants filed an application for review (Civil Application No. 28 of 2023) contending that they, and not the 1st respondent, were the rightful legal representatives of the claimants and that the 1st respondent had no locus standi to file the appeal, and was likely to misappropriate the claimants' money. They brought the present application to stay execution of the decree in Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2021 pending determination of the review. The application was scheduled before a single Judge, who considered the affidavits in support, in reply and in rejoinder before addressing the question of his jurisdiction to hear it.

Issues

  1. Whether a single Judge of the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for a stay of execution.
  2. Whether an oral application for an interim stay of execution is properly before the Court.

Orders

  • The single Judge declined jurisdiction to hear and determine the application for stay of execution, Rule 50(2)(b) requiring it to be heard by the full Court.
  • The Registrar is directed to reschedule the application for determination before the full bench.
  • The oral application for an interim stay of execution is declined as not properly before the Court under Rule 42(1).
  • Civil Application No. 27 of 2023 to be cause listed immediately for hearing and determination before the full panel.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Jurisdiction of a Single Judge of the Supreme Court
An application for a stay of execution in the Supreme Court must be heard by the full Court and not by a single Judge, by operation of Rule 50(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules; a single Judge before whom such an application is listed lacks jurisdiction to determine it and must refer it to the full bench.
Civil Procedure — Applications — Form — Oral Application for Interim Stay
Every application to the Court must be made by motion stating the grounds under Rule 42(1) of the Supreme Court Rules; an oral application for an interim stay of execution is not properly before the Court and will not be entertained, notwithstanding that the Court has jurisdiction to grant interim relief on a properly constituted motion.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.28
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126
  • Supreme Court Rules r.6(2)(b)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.42(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.42(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.50(2)(b)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.2(2)

Cases cited (2)

  • Alcon International Ltd v The New Vision Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2010)
  • Hwan Sung Industries v Tagdin & 2 Ors (Civil Appeal 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.