Commissioner Customs Uganda Revenue Authority v Kayumba (Civil Application No 62 of 2014)

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

On an application initially framed as an interim stay, the single Justice held that under section 12(1) of the Judicature Act a single Justice of the Court of Appeal may grant a substantive order of stay of execution. The Justice found a valid notice of appeal had been filed, the appeal raised serious issues of law and was not frivolous, the application was made without undue delay, and special circumstances existed because the subject matter (832 pieces of ivory) was likely to be moved outside the jurisdiction and was also required as an exhibit in pending criminal proceedings. A substantive order of stay of execution pending appeal was accordingly granted, disposing of both applications.

Outcome

Substantive order of stay of execution pending appeal granted; the ivory consignment to be preserved pending the appeal.

Facts

The applicant, the Commissioner Customs of the Uganda Revenue Authority, sought a stay of execution of a High Court order in Nakawa Miscellaneous Cause No. 049 of 2013, delivered on 24 February 2014, which ordered the release of a consignment of 832 pieces of ivory to the respondent. The respondent traded as Ets Ogane Company; in his High Court affidavit he described himself as a Ugandan citizen, but in the Court of Appeal his advocate's affirmation described him as a foreigner whose goods were in transit. The applicant had filed a notice of appeal and requested the lower court record. The ivory was said to be impounded while in transit and was also an exhibit in criminal proceedings (Criminal Case No. 0016 of 2013) before the Anti-Corruption Division. The applicant contended that releasing the ivory would render the appeal nugatory and jeopardise the criminal proceedings as the ivory would likely be moved out of the jurisdiction.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of a stay of execution of the High Court order pending appeal.
2. Whether special circumstances existed warranting the grant of a stay of execution.
3. Whether a single Justice of the Court of Appeal may grant a substantive order of stay of execution under section 12 of the Judicature Act.

Orders

• A substantive order of stay of execution pending appeal is granted.
• This ruling disposes of both Civil Applications No. 61 and No. 62 of 2014.
• Costs of both applications shall abide the results of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.10
• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.12(1)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.2
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.6(2)(b)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.43
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.53(2)(b)

Cases cited (7)

• Akright Projects Ltd v Executive Property Holdings and 12 Others (Civil Application No. 3 of 2011)
• Kato and Another v Nuulu Nalwoga (Civil Application No. 12 of 2011)
• Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
• Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein and Others (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
• Francis Mica v Nuwa Walakira (Civil Application No. 9 of 1990)
• Teddy Sseezi Cheeye and Another v Enos Tumisiime (Civil Application No. 21 of 1996)
• National Enterprise Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 1998)

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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.

• Roko Construction Limited v Pramukh Steel Limited (Civil Application No. 275 of 2025)
• Kerilee Investments Ltd v Krone (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 227 of 2017)
• S & A Consultants Ltd v Crane Management Services Ltd (Civil Suit No. 352 of 2013)
• Laila Kaka Wallia & Anor v Zubeda & Anor (Civil Application No. 366 of 2015)

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