Bagonza & 9 Ors v Kimala & 4 Ors (Civil Reference No. 63 of 2013)

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

The single Justice of Appeal held that there is no statutory provision creating a right of reference or appeal from a decision of a Registrar refusing a stay of execution to a single Justice of Appeal. Since an appeal is a creature of statute and cannot be presumed, such jurisdiction does not legally exist and the court declined to exercise it. The court agreed that Practice Direction No. 1 of 2004 grants Registrars powers similar to a single Justice under section 12 of the Judicature Act, and that Rule 53(2)(b) contradicts section 12 and must be read subject to the Act. The reference was dismissed with costs, the applicants being advised to fix their stay application before a bench of three Justices.

Outcome

Reference dismissed for want of jurisdiction; applicants advised to fix Civil Application No. 356 of 2012 for stay of execution before a bench of three Justices

Facts

Kamoga (deceased) and his son Kimala held a freehold title over land in Mbuya. The Government sold pool houses on the land to the appellants, and the Uganda Land Commission granted them lease titles over the same land. Kamoga and Kimala sued the Attorney General, the Uganda Land Commission and the appellants in High Court Civil Suit No. 1183 of 1997. The Attorney General entered a consent judgment acknowledging the plaintiffs' entitlement to terminate the Government lease and re-enter, and declaring the leases granted to the appellants unlawful. A High Court judge set aside the consent judgment, but the Court of Appeal restored it and the Supreme Court dismissed the appellants' appeal. The estate sought to enforce the consent judgment. The appellants applied to the High Court to set it aside, which was refused. They then filed Civil Application No. 356 of 2012 (stay of execution) and No. 357 of 2012 (interim order). The Registrar dismissed the interim order application, prompting this reference.

Issues

1. Whether a single Justice of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain a reference from a decision of the Registrar refusing a stay of execution.
2. Whether Rule 53(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, precluding a single judge from hearing an application for stay of execution, is overridden by section 12 of the Judicature Act.

Orders

• Application (reference) dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (10)

• Judicature Act s.12
• Judicature Act s.12(1)
• Judicature Act s.12(2)
• Judicature Act s.41(1)(v)
• Court of Appeal Rules Rule 53
• Court of Appeal Rules Rule 15(4)
• Court of Appeal Rules Rule 110(3)
• Court of Appeal Rules Rule 55(2)
• Court of Appeal (Judicial Powers of Registrars) Practice Direction No. 1 of 2004 Rule 4
• Court of Appeal (Judicial Powers of Registrars) Practice Direction No. 1 of 2004 Rule 5

Cases cited (3)

• Butera Edward v Mutalemwa Godfrey (Civil Reference No. 70 of 2013)
• Herman Kaliisa v Gladys Nyangire and Others (Civil Reference No. 116 of 2013)
• Attorney General v Shah (No. 4) [1971] EA 50

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.

• Kalisa v Karumu & 2 Ors (Civil Reference No 139 of 2013) followed
• Kalisa v Nyangire & 2 Ors (Civil Reference No 139 of 2013)

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