Fairway Hotel Limited v Omongole and Another (Civil Application 284 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 single Justice held that an applicant for an interim stay of execution must show a competent notice of appeal, a pending substantive application for stay, and a serious threat of execution. All three conditions were satisfied. The Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction under Practice Direction No.1 of 2004 to stay proceedings before her, but that order was confined to her own court and expressly did not operate as a stay of execution; the threat of execution before the Court of Appeal therefore remained. Exercising the court's inherent power under rule 2(2) to preserve the status quo and prevent the appeal being rendered nugatory, the court granted the interim stay of execution.

Outcome

Interim stay of execution granted pending determination of the substantive stay application before the full bench

Facts

The applicant company faced execution of a decree following dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 207 of 2014, extraction of the decree and taxation of the bill of costs. The applicant had previously obtained an extension of time and filed a notice of appeal on 4 April 2014, and had filed a substantive application for stay of execution (Civil Application No. 79 of 2021). The applicant complained of a double threat of execution: a Notice to Show Cause for UGX 137,760,960 and a further execution application by an advocate (Civil Application No. 393 of 2021) seeking UGX 76,000,000. The respondents had previously executed by selling three of the applicant's motor vehicles. The respondents argued the application was overtaken by events because the Deputy Registrar had stayed all proceedings pending Taxation Reference No. 394 of 2021. However, that order was confined to the Registrar's proceedings and expressly noted it did not stop execution.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant satisfied the three conditions for the grant of an interim order for stay of execution.
2. Whether the Deputy Registrar's order staying proceedings extinguished the threat of execution before the Court of Appeal.
3. Whether the Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction to make an order for stay of proceedings.

Orders

• Application granted.
• Interim stay of execution granted to preserve the status quo until determination of the substantive application for stay.
• Costs referred to the main application and appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.100(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.43
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.44(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.53
• Judicature Act 2000 s.41(2)(w)
• Court of Appeal (Judicial Powers of Registrars) Practice Direction No.1 of 2004

Cases cited (7)

• Hwan Sung Industries Limited v Tajdin Hussein (SC Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
• Luwalira Noah Deogratias v Lwanga Enock (Civil Application No. 201 of 2021)
• G v C (SC Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2003)
• Zubeda Mohamed v Laila Wallia (Civil Reference No. 7 of 2016)
• Yakobo Senkungu v Cerencio Mukasa (SC Civil Application No. 5 of 2013)
• Muwema & Mugerwa Advocates vs. Shell (U) Ltd and 10 others
• Mohamed Kalisa v Gladys Nyangire Karumu (Civil Reference No. 139 of 2013)

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