Wakilii

Florah Ramarungu v DFCU Leasing Co. Ltd [2009] UGSC 10

Supreme Court · 2009 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for an interim order of stay of execution pending the hearing of a substantive application for stay, arising from a Court of Appeal decision and a Registrar's ruling.
Decision
Interim order of stay of execution refused; 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 Supreme Court (Tsekooko JSC, single Justice) declined to grant an interim order of stay of execution. The applicant showed no compelling circumstances and no irreparable loss, the suit property having been sold to a third party (not a party to the suit) some seven months before she filed her suit, and an order refusing a temporary injunction was in any event not executable. The court further observed that the Registrar of the Court of Appeal had no power to make a final ruling that a party could not file a stay application in that court; such a ruling was a nullity, the Court of Appeal having inherent power to stay its own orders. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Interim order of stay of execution refused; application dismissed with costs.

Facts

The applicant's husband obtained a loan from the respondent secured by two omnibuses and, by a consent decree in HCCS No. 613 of 2005, land at LRV 1113 Folio 19 Nyabushozi. When the debt was not cleared, a court bailiff sold the suit land to a third party on 30 October 2006. Seven months later the applicant, who resided in the matrimonial house on the land and alleged her consent to the mortgage had not been obtained, filed High Court Civil Suit No. 753 of 2006 challenging the mortgage and auction. Her application for a temporary injunction was refused by the High Court for want of irreparable loss and because no status quo remained, the land having been sold. Her appeal (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 60 of 2007) was dismissed. The Registrar of the Court of Appeal dismissed her interim-stay application (No. 20 of 2009) as incompetent. She then sought an interim stay in the Supreme Court pending her substantive application.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had established compelling circumstances and irreparable loss justifying the grant of an interim order of stay of execution.
  2. Whether there was any executable order capable of being stayed where the matter concerned the refusal of a temporary injunction.
  3. Whether the Registrar of the Court of Appeal had power to hear and dismiss an application for stay of execution and direct the party to apply to the Supreme Court.

Orders

  • Application for an interim order of stay of execution declined.
  • Application dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Interim Orders — Compelling Circumstances and Irreparable Loss
An interim order of stay of execution will only be granted in compelling circumstances, and an applicant who fails to establish that she will suffer irreparable loss if the status quo is not maintained is not entitled to such an order.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Non-Executable Orders — Refusal of Temporary Injunction
Where the order in question merely refuses a temporary injunction, there is nothing capable of execution, and accordingly no stay of execution can be granted.
Civil Procedure — Court of Appeal — Powers of the Registrar — Applications for Stay
A Registrar of the Court of Appeal has no power to make a final decision that a party cannot file an application for stay of execution in that court; a ruling purporting to do so is a nullity.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Jurisdiction — Power of a Court to Stay Its Own Orders
A court such as the Court of Appeal has inherent power to stay its own orders, being best suited to do so because it is better acquainted with the facts of the case than the superior appellate court.
Civil Procedure — Concurrent Jurisdiction — Order of Recourse — Court of Appeal Before Supreme Court
Where a party may apply to either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court for an order, the party ought to start with an application in the Court of Appeal first.
Civil Procedure — Registrar's Decisions — Remedy by Reference to a Single Judge
A party dissatisfied with a lawful order of a Registrar of the Court of Appeal may apply for a reference of that decision to a single Judge of the Court, a less formal procedure intended to expedite disposal of contentions within the Court.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.2(2)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.6(2)(b)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.41
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.42
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.72
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.2(2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.12
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.13
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.15
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.76

Cases cited (2)

  • L. M. Kyazze v Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Atabya Agencies (Civil Application No. 31 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Florah Ramarungu v DFCU Leasing Co. Ltd [2009] UGSC 10 (8 July 2009)
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.