Ddumba and Another v Bagambe (Miscellaneous Application No. 356 of 2021)

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.

Holding

The court considered an oral application for protective orders pending the hearing of an application for an interim order of stay of execution. A Notice to Show Cause Why Execution Should Not Issue, by way of eviction and arrest, had been issued against the applicants and was scheduled before the Registrar the following day. Relying on its inherent power under Rule 2(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directives, the court held that where there is an imminent danger to an applicant's claim it may make protective orders. Satisfied from the supplementary affidavit that a real threat of execution existed, the court granted the protective order and stayed any execution of the decree until determination of the interim stay application.

Outcome

Protective order granted; execution stayed pending determination of the application for an interim order of stay of execution

Facts

The applicants brought an application before the Court of Appeal for an interim order of stay of execution, arising from a civil appeal. While the court was setting timelines for the filing of submissions, counsel for the applicants prayed for protective orders pending determination of that application. The basis was that a Notice to Show Cause Why Execution Should Not Issue, particularly by way of eviction and arrest, had been issued against the applicants and was scheduled for hearing before the Registrar of the Land Division of the High Court the following day. The applicants relied on a supplementary affidavit of David Luzige, which deponed that the administrators of the late Charles William Makumbi Ddumba had at all material times been in physical occupation of the land, and that the respondent had already taken steps to evict the applicants. The respondent opposed the prayer, arguing that the land was vacant and not occupied by the applicants. The court found that the threatened eviction itself indicated the applicants were in occupation.

Issues

1. Whether the applicants demonstrated a real threat of execution justifying the grant of protective orders pending determination of the application for an interim stay of execution.

Orders

• Protective order sought is granted.
• Any form of execution of the decree is stayed until the determination of the application for interim order of stay.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directives Rule 2(2)

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