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

Observed later treatment

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

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.

Outcome

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.

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.

Rules and key headnotes

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)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• AYA Investment (U) Limited v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited (Civil Application 410 of 2023 Civil Application 542 of 2023)
• AYA Investment (U) Limited v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited (Civil Application 410 of 2023; Civil Application 542 of 2023)

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.