Wakilii

Butera v Mutaremwa (Civil Reference No. 70 of 2013)

Court of Appeal · [2013] UGCA 5 · 2013 Reference Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single Justice of Appeal from a decision of the Assistant Registrar dismissing an application for an interim order of stay of execution
Decision
Reference allowed; Registrar's dismissal set aside and interim stay of execution granted for three months

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

A single Justice of Appeal held that a Reference against a Registrar's decision made in exercise of the Registrar's enhanced powers under Practice Direction No.1 of 2004 is properly brought before a single Justice. While Rule 42(1) requires applications to be made first in the High Court, Rule 42(2) and the Court's overall jurisdiction permit direct application to the Court of Appeal where, as here, there was imminent threatened execution and the High Court could not be approached owing to ongoing transfers of judges and registrars. The Registrar erred by failing to consider these facts. The Reference was allowed and an interim stay of execution granted for three months.

Outcome

Reference allowed; Registrar's dismissal set aside and interim stay of execution granted for three months

Facts

On 12 April 2013 the High Court (Civil Division) issued a decree against the applicant in favour of the respondent, requiring him to give vacant possession of commercial suit premises at Nakasero market, Kampala, and to pay damages and costs. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal, a substantive application for stay of execution (Application No.111 of 2013) and an application for an interim order of stay (Application No.112 of 2013). The applicant deposed that the respondent was already moving at speed to execute, with the court file having been forwarded to the Execution and Bailiffs Division. He had not been able to pursue a stay in the High Court because of ongoing transfers of judges and registrars. The Assistant Registrar dismissed Application No.112 of 2013 on 07.05.2013, reasoning that the application ought first to have been made in the High Court. The applicant brought this Reference to a single Justice of Appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Reference is properly brought before the Court of Appeal comprised of a single Justice.
  2. Whether the Assistant Registrar erred in law and fact in dismissing the application for interim stay on the ground that it ought first to have been filed in the High Court.
  3. Whether the applicant is entitled to the interim order of stay of execution sought.

Orders

  • The Reference is allowed.
  • The order of the Assistant Registrar dated 07.05.2013 dismissing Application No.112 of 2013 is set aside.
  • An interim order of stay of execution of the High Court (Civil Division) Decree in Civil Appeal No.064 of 2010 is substituted, to last three calendar months.
  • Within three months the applicant is to prosecute Application No.111 of 2013 for stay to completion, failing which he must seek a further order; otherwise the interim order lapses.
  • Costs of the application shall abide the event of substantive Application No.111 of 2013 or any further orders of the Court.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — References — Reference to a Single Justice from a Registrar's decision made under enhanced powers
A Reference against the decision of a Registrar made in exercise of the Registrar's enhanced powers under Practice Direction No.1 of 2004 lies to a single Justice of the Court of Appeal, not to a bench of three Justices, the latter only entertaining References from a single Justice under section 12(2) of the Judicature Act and Rule 55(2).
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Rule 42(1) requirement to apply first in High Court and the Rule 42(2) exception
Although Rule 42(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules requires that an application capable of being made in either court be made first in the High Court, Rule 42(2) and the Court's overall jurisdiction permit direct application to the Court of Appeal where the High Court refuses or wrongly declines jurisdiction, where there is great delay, or where the justice of the case so requires in order to safeguard the right of appeal.
Civil Procedure — Interim Stay of Execution — Conditions for grant
For an interim order of stay it suffices to show that a substantive application is pending and that there is a serious threat of execution before the hearing of the pending substantive application; it is not necessary to pre-empt the matters relevant to the substantive stay application.

Legislation cited (13)

  • Judicature Act 2000 s.41(1)(v)
  • Judicature Act s.12(2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.4
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.5
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.6(2)(b)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.15(4)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.42(1)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.42(2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.53
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.54
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.55
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.55(2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.110(3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kitende Appolonalies Kalibogha & 2 Others v Eleonora Wismer (Civil Application No. 6 of 2010)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Butera v Mutaremwa (Civil Reference No. 70 of 2013) [2013] UGCA 5 (14 June 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.