Aids Health Foundation v Mirembe Kizito (Civil Application No. 147 of 2014)

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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

A single Justice of the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction under section 12(1) of the Judicature Act to hear applications for stay of execution, injunction or stay of proceedings pending appeal, as these are interlocutory matters; Rule 53 does not restrict this. However, where the Court of Appeal and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction, Rule 42(1) requires such applications be made first to the High Court. The applicant gave no reason for not applying to the High Court and showed no rare or special circumstances justifying direct recourse to the Court of Appeal. The application was accordingly dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for interim stay of execution dismissed; applicant directed to apply first to the High Court under Rule 42(1)

Facts

The High Court (Oguli-Oumo J), in a decision dated 20 February 2014 in Miscellaneous Application No. 107 of 2013 arising from Civil Suit No. 25 of 2005, awarded the respondent Shs.10,000,000 as general damages and Shs.15,000,000 as punitive damages plus costs. The applicant intended to appeal and brought this application before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal under Rules 42(1)(2) and 6(2) seeking an interim order of stay of execution pending a substantive application for stay of execution, which itself was pending the hearing of the intended appeal. The applicant offered no reason for not first applying for stay to the judge who issued the decree, nor for failing to comply with Rule 42(1) of the Rules of the Court.

Issues

1. Whether a single Justice of the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for stay of execution pending appeal.
2. Whether the applicant could properly bring the application directly in the Court of Appeal without first applying to the High Court under Rule 42(1) of the Rules of the Court.

Orders

• The application (Civil Application No. 147 of 2014) is dismissed.
• The applicant is advised to comply with Rule 42(1) and file the application before the High Court if so desired.
• The applicant shall pay the costs of this application.
• Miscellaneous Application No. 146 of 2014 is also dismissed under Rule 2(2) with no order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Judicature Act s.12(1)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.2(2)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.6(2)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.42(1)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.42(2)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.53
• Civil Procedure Rules Order XXXIX r.4(3)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order XLVIII r.1

Cases cited (2)

• Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
• Margaret Kato and Joel Kato v Nuulu Nalwoga (Civil Application No. 11 of 2011)

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