Wakilii

Global Capital Save 2004 Ltd and Another v Okiror (Civil Application 57 of 2021)

Supreme Court · [2022] UGSC 40 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for an interim order of stay of execution pending the disposal of a related application before the Supreme Court
Decision
Application for interim order of stay of execution dismissed; applicants advised to pursue the pending application in the Court of Appeal

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 (single Justice) dismissed an application for an interim order of stay of execution. On a preliminary point, the court held that a notice of appeal is lodged on the date the Registrar dates and signs it as duly lodged, so service nine days after payment of fees was within time, and the objection was dismissed. On the merits, the court held that under rule 41(1) of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions an application that may be made to either court must be made to the Court of Appeal first. As a similar application for stay was already pending and undetermined in the Court of Appeal, filing the instant application amounted to an abuse of court process. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for interim order of stay of execution dismissed; applicants advised to pursue the pending application in the Court of Appeal

Facts

The applicants were the unsuccessful parties in the High Court and the Court of Appeal and had filed Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2021 pending before the Supreme Court. Concerned that the executable orders of the courts below might be enforced before their appeal was determined, they sought an interim order of stay of execution. The applicants had also filed a substantive application for stay and an application for an interim order before the Court of Appeal, which the Court of Appeal had not heard, allegedly because it had failed to constitute a panel. The respondent denied any decree capable of execution and contended that filing the instant application while a similar application remained pending in the Court of Appeal amounted to an abuse of process.

Issues

  1. Whether the Notice of Appeal was lodged on the date fees were paid and it was stamped, or on the later date the Registrar dated and signed it as duly lodged.
  2. Whether the Supreme Court should entertain an application for stay of execution while a similar application remains pending and undetermined in the Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection dismissed for lack of merit.
  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Forum: application to be made to Court of Appeal first
Where an application may be made either to the Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeal, rule 41(1) of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions requires that it be made to the Court of Appeal first, and a party may proceed to the Supreme Court only if relief has been denied there.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Court Process — Concurrent applications for the same relief
Filing an application for stay of execution in the Supreme Court while a similar application remains pending and undetermined before the Court of Appeal constitutes an abuse of court process which no court should condone.
Civil Procedure — Notice of Appeal — Date of lodging
A notice of appeal is lodged on the date the Registrar dates and signs it as duly lodged, not the earlier date on which fees are paid and the document is received and stamped; time for service under rule 74(1) runs from the date of lodging.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.41(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.42
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.43
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.74(1)

Cases cited (6)

  • Hassan Basajjabalaba and Another v Attorney General (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2018)
  • Patrick Kaumba Wiltshire v Ismail Dabule (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2018)
  • China Henan International Corp Group Co. Ltd v Justus Kyabahwa (Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2021)
  • Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2014)
  • National Housing & Construction Corp v Kampala District Land Board and Another (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2002)
  • Kasaala Growers Cooperative Society v Jonathan and Another (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Global Capital Save 2004 Ltd and Another v Okiror (Civil Application 57 of 2021) [2022] UGSC 40 (9 March 2022)
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.