Wakilii

Attorney General of Republic of Uganda v East African Law Society and Another (Application 1 of 2013)

East African Court of Justice · [2013] EACJ 10 · 2013 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of orders pending appeal from ruling in Application No. 12 of 2012 arising from Reference No. 2 of 2012
Decision
Orders in Application No. 12 of 2012 stayed pending determination of appeal

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.

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

The Court held that a notice of appeal is sufficient to found an application for stay of execution. The Applicant satisfied all three requirements for a stay: substantial loss would result if the appeal were rendered nugatory by continued proceedings, the application was made without unreasonable delay, and as Attorney General of a Partner State the Applicant was exempt from providing security for costs under Rule 115(2). The orders in Application No. 12 of 2012 were stayed pending determination of the appeal.

Outcome

Orders in Application No. 12 of 2012 stayed pending determination of appeal

Facts

The Attorney General of Uganda applied for a stay of execution of orders made on 13 February 2013 in Application No. 12 of 2012, pending an intended appeal. In the earlier application, the East African Law Society had been granted leave to produce additional evidence in electronic and documentary format after the close of pleadings in Reference No. 2 of 2012. The Attorney General contended that this additional evidence significantly changed the character and nature of the Reference, introducing over one hundred new incidents instead of the original incidents around Kampala city, and that this occurred after conferencing and submissions had been completed. The Attorney General filed a notice of appeal on 4 March 2013 and requested the record of proceedings. The 1st Respondent filed preliminary objections arguing that the orders had been complied with and were spent, but filed no affidavit in response.

Issues

  1. Whether a notice of appeal is sufficient to found an application for stay of execution or whether a full memorandum of appeal must be filed.
  2. Whether the Applicant will suffer substantial loss if a stay of execution is not granted.
  3. Whether the application for stay was made without unreasonable delay.
  4. Whether the Applicant, being the Attorney General of a Partner State, is exempt from the requirement to provide security for costs.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • The orders issued in Application No. 12 of 2012 be stayed pending the determination of an intended appeal by the Applicant, which must be filed strictly in accordance with Rules of this Court.
  • The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the intended Appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Notice of Appeal as Sufficient Basis
A notice of appeal is a sufficient expression of an intention to file an appeal and is sufficient to found the basis for grant of orders of stay of execution in appropriate cases, without requiring the filing of a full memorandum of appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements for Grant
For a stay of execution to be granted, three conditions must be satisfied: (a) that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order of stay is made; (b) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (c) that security for costs has been given by the applicant.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
Substantial loss may be demonstrated where allowing proceedings to continue would render a pending appeal nugatory and prejudice the applicant, particularly where the character and nature of the reference has been fundamentally altered by the admission of new evidence after the close of pleadings and submissions.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Exemption for Partner States
Where a claimant or applicant is a Partner State, the Secretary General, or any of the institutions of the Community, no security for costs is required pursuant to Rule 115(2) of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers — Orders for the Ends of Justice
Pursuant to Rule 1(2) of the Rules of the East African Court of Justice, the Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice, and may grant a stay of execution where the dictates of justice so demand.

Cases cited (6)

  • Sewankambo Dickson v Ziwa Abby (Application No. 178 of 2005)
  • Ujgar Singh v Rwanda Coffee Estates Ltd [1966] EA 263
  • Raila Odinga v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and 3 Others (Petition No. 5 of 2013)
  • G. N. Combined (U) Ltd v A. K. Detergents (U) Ltd (HCCC No. 384 of 1994)
  • Attorney General of Uganda v East African Law Society (Application No. 7 of 2012)
  • Angela Amudo v Secretary General of the East African Community (Case No. 1 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Attorney General of Republic of Uganda v East African Law Society and Another (Application 1 of 2013) [2013] EACJ 10 (17 May 2013)
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.