Afaro v Uganda Breweries Ltd (Civil Application 12 of 2008)

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 ex parte application, the Supreme Court held that it has inherent power under rule 2(2) of its Rules to make such orders as may be necessary to achieve the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, including an interim order of stay of execution. Satisfied that the respondent's threat to execute the Court of Appeal's costs order in Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2005 was real and would render the applicant's pending appeal nugatory, the single Justice granted an interim stay to preserve the status quo until the substantive stay application (Civil Application No. 11 of 2008) was heard, or until 22 September 2008, whichever came first.

Outcome

Interim order of stay of execution granted, preserving the status quo pending the hearing of the substantive stay application

Facts

The applicant was employed by the respondent and, in the course of his employment, was crushed against a wall by the respondent's forklift, suffering serious injuries to his genitals. He sued the respondent in the High Court, which awarded him 22 million shillings as compensation and legal fees. On the respondent's appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal with costs (Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2005). The applicant then appealed to the Supreme Court (SCCA No. 04 of 2008). After being served with the appeal papers, the respondent threatened execution of the Court of Appeal's decree, filing an execution application with a warrant of arrest in the Court of Appeal on 2 June 2008. The applicant filed a substantive application for stay (Civil Application No. 11 of 2008) in the Supreme Court, and separately sought an interim stay in the lower court, which was rejected, leading to this ex parte application.

Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court has inherent power to grant an interim order of stay of execution pending the disposal of a substantive application for stay of execution.
2. Whether an interim order should be granted to preserve the status quo and prevent the applicant's pending appeal from being rendered nugatory.

Orders

• Application allowed.
• Execution of the order of the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2005 stayed pending the disposal of the substantive application for stay of execution now pending before this court.
• The interim order shall remain in force until 22 September 2008, or until substantive Application No. 11 of 2008 is heard and disposed of, whichever comes first.
• If by 22 September 2008 the substantive application is not yet disposed of, the matter shall be returned to this court for review.
• Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the substantive Application No. 11 of 2008.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Rules of the Supreme Court r.2(2)

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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.

• Butia v Dratele & Another (Miscellaneous Application 37 of 2019)
• Musoke v Agard & 2 Others (Civil Application 37 of 2021)
• Omuhereza & 119 Others v National Forestry Authority (Civil Application No. 0308 of 2014)
• G. Afaro vs Uganda Breweries Ltd [2008] UGSC 11

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