Bavima Steel Limited v Muscle Construction Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Appeal 26 of 2024)
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
Held that a Deputy Registrar lacks jurisdiction to grant a substantive stay of execution pending determination of objector proceedings. While registrars may grant interim stays pending a Judge's determination of a stay application, only Judges possess the power under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to grant substantive stays of execution. The Deputy Registrar's order staying execution until disposal of the objector application was a substantive stay, not an interim one, and was therefore a nullity. Appeal allowed and Deputy Registrar's orders set aside.
Outcome
Deputy Registrar's ruling and orders declared a nullity for lack of jurisdiction; matter effectively remitted to Judge for proper determination of stay application
Facts
Bavima Steel Limited obtained a decree against Muscle Group Limited for UGX 236,884,609 in Civil Suit No. 233 of 2021. A warrant of attachment and sale was issued on 27 May 2024 to execute the decree, and goods including 533 bags of cement were attached. Muscle Construction Limited (not a party to the main suit) filed an objector application claiming the attached goods belonged to it, not to Muscle Group Limited. It also filed Misc. Application No. 1274 of 2024 before the Deputy Registrar seeking stay of execution pending determination of the objector application. The Deputy Registrar granted the stay. Bavima Steel Limited appealed, contending the Deputy Registrar lacked jurisdiction and that the perishable cement would deteriorate if not sold. Muscle Construction opposed the appeal, arguing the Appellant needed leave to appeal.
Issues
- Whether this appeal is competent.
- Whether the ruling and orders of the Learned Deputy Registrar in Misc. Application No. 1274 of 2024 should be set aside.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Orders of the Learned Deputy Registrar in Misc. Application No. 1274 of 2024 set aside.
- Costs of this appeal to abide by the outcome of Misc. Application No. 1256 of 2024.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Judicature Act s.33
- Civil Procedure Act s.79
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 50 Rule 8
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 50 Rule 4
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 50 Rule 6
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 22 Rule 23
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rules 1 and 3
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended) Article 28(1)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended) Article 44(c)
Cases cited (6)
- Baku Raphael Obudra & Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
- Desai v Warsama (1967) EA 351
- Florence Dawaru v Angumale Albino & Another (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 96 of 2016)
- Bunyoro Kitara Reparations Agency Ltd v Kibaale District Land Board & 6 Others (Civil Appeal No. G011 of 2022)
- Kaggwa Michael v Apire John (Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2023)
- Mugenyi & Co. Advocates v National Insurance Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1984)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.