Wakilii

Babulal Davesh and Irene Blick Ar.etha (All) t a The Executive Committee of the Federation of Motorsports Clubs Uganda v Nsamba Ceofriy (Civil Application 19 of 2025)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 1 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending determination of a civil appeal from High Court judicial review orders
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 dismissed an application for stay of execution pending appeal against High Court judicial review orders. It held the application was improperly before the Court because no substantially similar application had first been made in the High Court, and it was brought under the wrong rules. The orders sought bore no relation to the High Court decision, which comprised self-executing prerogative judicial review orders incapable of being stayed. The applicants lacked capacity, having ceased to be Executive Committee members. They also failed to satisfy the conditions for a stay, having filed the memorandum of appeal out of time, shown no irreparable harm attributable to the respondent, and approached the Court with unclean hands due to unpurged contempt.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The respondent obtained judicial review orders in a consolidated High Court cause quashing decisions of the Executive Committee of the Federation of Motorsports Clubs Uganda (FMU-UG) to convene an extraordinary general assembly, and directing a fresh assembly. The applicants, former Executive Committee members, filed a notice of appeal and an out-of-time memorandum of appeal, and unsuccessfully sought a stay in the High Court (Misc. Application 1277 of 2024). They then filed a fresh application in the Court of Appeal seeking to restrain the respondent from interfering with FMU-UG management and from freezing its bank accounts. The applicants claimed the respondent, in concert with the Inspector General of Government (IGG), procured freezing of FMU-UG bank accounts, halting motorsport activities and exposing FMU-UG to an international ban. The respondent argued the IGG acted under its own constitutional mandate, that the High Court orders were self-executing and unexecuted, and that the applicants lacked capacity and had approached the court with unclean hands.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution is properly before the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether the applicants have capacity to institute the application.
  3. Whether there are sufficient grounds warranting the grant of a stay of execution.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • This application is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirement to Apply First in the High Court
An application for stay of execution must first be made in the High Court under Rule 42(1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal; where the application filed in the High Court materially differs in the orders sought from that later filed in the Court of Appeal, no similar application will be treated as having first been made below.
Judicial Review — Prerogative Orders — Not Capable of Being Stayed
Prerogative judicial review orders such as certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are self-executing and incapable of being executed by warrant; consequently they cannot be the subject of an order for stay of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
An applicant for stay of execution must show a lodged notice of appeal, a non-frivolous appeal with likelihood of success, a serious imminent threat of execution, absence of unreasonable delay, willingness to give security, that refusal would inflict greater hardship, and risk of irreparable damage.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — No Threat of Execution
A stay of execution will not be granted where the successful party has neither applied for nor obtained an order of execution, as there is no imminent threat of execution to justify the remedy.
Administrative Law — Inspector General of Government — Exercise of Independent Constitutional Mandate
Action taken by the Inspector General of Government pursuant to her constitutional mandate cannot be attributed to a litigant who merely informed the IGG of the contents of a court order; such a public body is not an agent or representative of a party and no order can be issued against it in proceedings to which it is not a party.
Civil Procedure — Equitable Discretion — Clean Hands and Unpurged Contempt
A court may decline to grant the discretionary remedy of stay of execution where the applicants approach the court with unclean hands, having been condemned for contempt without purging it or appealing that order.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (8)

  • Lawrence Musitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkudiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
  • Emaku Joseph and Another v Emulu of Amuge Charles (Civil Application No. 76 of 2024)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • National Housing & Construction Corporation v Kampala District Land Board (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2002)
  • Hwang Sung Industries v Tadjudin Hussein and Others (Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2008)
  • Orient Bank v Zabwe and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 19 of 2007)
  • Pius Niwagaba v Law Development Centre (Civil Application No. 18 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Babulal Davesh and Irene Blick Ar.etha (All) t a The Executive Committee of the Federation of Motorsports Clubs Uganda v Nsamba Ceofriy (Civil Application 19 of 2025) [2026] UGCA 1
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.