Wakilii

Dr. Shadat Ssemakula Mutyaba Mohmeded v Gulu University (Miscellaneous Application 48 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 1072 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of High Court orders pending appeal to the Court of Appeal, combined with prayers for injunction and prohibition
Decision
Application dismissed with costs

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

The High Court dismissed the application with costs. The court held that the order dismissing Miscellaneous Cause No. 001 of 2024 was a negative order incapable of execution, and therefore no stay of execution was warranted. The applicant's reliance on section 57(5) of the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act was misconceived as that provision applies only to persons who have appealed to the University Staff Tribunal, which the applicant had not done. The prayers for injunction and prohibition fell outside the court's circumscribed powers to stay its own orders pending appeal.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant, Dr. Shadat Ssemakula Mutyaba Mohmemed, was employed as Senior Lecturer and Dean Faculty of Law at Gulu University with a tenure expiring on 30 June 2026. He was interdicted by the respondent to pave way for investigations into his allegedly forged academic credentials. The applicant challenged the interdiction through Miscellaneous Cause No. 001 of 2024. On 27 May 2024, the High Court dismissed the application as moot because the applicant had since been dismissed from employment on 1 February 2024, rendering the challenge to the interdiction academic. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 705 of 2024). Meanwhile, on 22 October 2024, the respondent issued a notice announcing elections to fill the vacant position of Dean Faculty of Law, scheduled for 8 November 2024. The applicant then filed the present application on 29 October 2024 seeking to stay execution of the court's orders, obtain an injunction to stop his expulsion, and prohibit the election.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should stay execution of its order made in Miscellaneous Cause No. 001 of 2024 pending appeal to the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether the court should issue an injunction and order of prohibition to stop the election of the Dean Faculty of Law and prevent the applicant's expulsion from office.
  3. Whether a negative order dismissing a suit is capable of execution within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Act.

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No. 48 of 2024 dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent to be paid by the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Negative Orders — Executability
An order dismissing a suit is a negative order not capable of execution within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Act. Where a court has made a negative order, there is no decree that would be executable under section 38 of the Civil Procedure Act, and therefore no basis for granting a stay of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Powers of High Court Pending Appeal
Where the High Court has determined a judicial review matter and an appeal has been lodged, the court retains only circumscribed powers to consider whether to stay its orders pending appeal. The court cannot purport to hear a request for injunction which lacks the flavour of stay of execution, nor can it exercise supervisory powers over a public body as if sitting in judicial review.
Employment & Labour — Universities — Appeals Against Dismissal — Deemed Suspension
Section 57(5) of the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act provides that a university staff member removed from office shall be deemed suspended until expiry of the period allowed for appeal to the University Staff Tribunal, or where an appeal has been lodged, until the Tribunal or the High Court determines the appeal. This provision applies only to persons who have appealed to the University Staff Tribunal and does not extend to appeals from the High Court to the Court of Appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Procedure — Court of Appeal Rules
Rule 42 of the Court of Appeal Rules requires an applicant to first seek a stay of the orders or decrees of the High Court from the High Court before applying to the Court of Appeal. An application to the Court of Appeal may be made on refusal by the High Court, but the Court of Appeal would not be sitting on appeal from the refusal; rather, it would be entertaining the application in the exercise of its powers under rule 6(2)(b) of its rules.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dr. Shadat Ssemakula Mutyaba Mohmeded v Gulu University (Miscellaneous Application 48 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1072 (25 November 2024)
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.