Didi v Namakajo (Civil Suit No. 1230 of 1988)

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

An application for stay of execution brought under Order 19 r.23(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules must be dismissed where the application is made to the court that passed the decree, not to a court to which the decree was sent for execution. Order 19 r.23(1) applies only to courts executing decrees passed by other courts. The Court's inherent jurisdiction under section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be invoked where another remedy exists under the Rules.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed on technical grounds for being brought under the wrong rule

Facts

The plaintiff obtained an ex parte decree against the defendant on 3 July 1989. The defendant applied to stay execution of the decree, alleging that his failure to enter appearance was caused by advocates instructed to act on his behalf who failed to carry out his instructions. A warrant of attachment had been issued against the defendant's motor vehicle UPF 658. The defendant sought the stay to enable him to prosecute a pending application to set aside the ex parte judgment. The plaintiff opposed the application, alleging that the defendant's affidavit contained falsities, that the motor vehicle did not belong to the defendant, and that the defendant had obstructed execution by assaulting the court bailiff and forcefully removing attached properties.

Issues

1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to stay execution of its own decree under Order 19 r.23(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. Whether the Court's inherent jurisdiction under section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act can be invoked where another remedy exists under the Rules.

Orders

• Application dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 r.23(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 r.89
• Civil Procedure Act s.101

Cases cited (1)

• Singh v Runda Coffee Estates Ltd (1966) EA 263

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.

• Namutete Mugwanya v Kizito Ssewava (Civil Suit No. 514 of 2018)
• Sylvan Kakugu Tumwesigyire v Trans Sahara International General Trading LLC (HCT-00-CC-CS 95 of 2005)

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