Wakilii

INCAFEX Limited v Rukikaire (Civil Application 8 of 2023)

Supreme Court · [2023] UGSC 68 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by Notice of Motion for stay of proceedings, heard with a related application before a full panel of the Supreme Court
Decision
Application for stay dismissed with costs; an interim injunction issued restraining alienation of INCAFEX's property pending the special audit, and Civil Application No. 14 of 2022 referred to the High Court Commercial Division.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 dismissed INCAFEX's application to stay the hearing of Civil Application No. 04 of 2021 pending a constitutional petition. Madrama JSC held that the application had already been determined when the single Justice declined to grant the orders sought, so there was no pending proceeding capable of being stayed. The proper course was to object to the court's jurisdiction and, if overruled, seek a reference under article 137(5) of the Constitution; filing an original constitutional petition to forestall the hearing was improper. The court lacked jurisdiction to stay proceedings pending a petition before the Constitutional Court. Invoking its inherent powers under rule 2(2), it nonetheless granted an interim injunction preserving the company's property pending the audit.

Outcome

Application for stay dismissed with costs; an interim injunction issued restraining alienation of INCAFEX's property pending the special audit, and Civil Application No. 14 of 2022 referred to the High Court Commercial Division.

Facts

The dispute originated in Companies Cause No. 03 of 2004, in which Rukikaire petitioned for the winding up of INCAFEX Limited on grounds of oppression. The High Court ordered a special audit of the company's books and shareholding. INCAFEX appealed; the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court, but the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2015 allowed Rukikaire's appeal, reinstated the High Court orders (with modifications on appointment of auditors), and directed the parties to report back to the High Court for consequential orders after the audit. The audit was repeatedly frustrated. Rukikaire filed Civil Application No. 04 of 2021 seeking, among other orders, a finding of contempt; Chibita JSC declined to grant the orders and advised the parties to return to the auditors. The matter was later re-fixed for hearing before a full panel. INCAFEX filed Constitutional Petition No. 06 of 2023 challenging the re-hearing and then this application to stay proceedings pending that petition.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent's affidavit in reply was incurably defective by reason of the jurat appearing on a separate page.
  2. Whether Civil Application No. 04 of 2021 had been finally determined when the single Justice declined to grant the orders sought, such that there was no pending proceeding capable of being stayed.
  3. Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to stay its own proceedings pending the hearing of an original constitutional petition filed in the Constitutional Court.
  4. Whether jurisdiction to execute the orders following the ordered special audit lies with the High Court rather than the Supreme Court.

Orders

  • Civil Application No. 08 of 2023 is dismissed with costs.
  • Civil Application No. 14 of 2022 (Mathew Rukikaire v INCAFEX Ltd) is referred to the High Court Commercial Division for further management, with no order as to costs.
  • An interim injunction issues pending the audit and issuance of any final consequential orders of the High Court, restraining INCAFEX Limited, its directors, shareholders, officers, employees and agents from selling, mortgaging, pledging or alienating the listed ranches and properties until final conclusion of the audit ordered in Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2015 and submission of the auditors' award to the High Court.
  • Any questions relating to trial by the auditors shall be determined by the High Court.
  • The costs of Civil Application No. 04 of 2021 and Civil Application No. 08 of 2023 shall be in the cause of the main suit in the High Court pending trial by auditors.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Finality of Decisions — Functus Officio
Where a single Justice has determined an application by declining to grant the orders sought, that application is determined and there is no longer a pending proceeding capable of being stayed; the remedy of a dissatisfied party is to seek to have the matter reopened, not to re-fix it for hearing.
Civil Procedure — Supreme Court — Powers of a Single Justice (Judicature Act s.8)
A single Justice of the Supreme Court may exercise the powers of the court in any interlocutory cause or matter; the fixing of a matter before a single Justice does not signify that the parties intended it to be finally heard by a single Justice, and a single Justice's decision may be varied or reversed by a panel.
Constitutional Law — Reference under Article 137(5) — Stay Pending Constitutional Petition
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to stay its own proceedings pending the hearing of an original constitutional petition filed in the Constitutional Court; where a party perceives a constitutional question, the proper course is to object to the court's jurisdiction and, if overruled, invite the court to make a reference under article 137(5), rather than filing an original petition to forestall the hearing.
Civil Procedure — References to Referees and Arbitrators (Judicature Act ss.26–28)
Where the High Court refers a question of accounts for trial by a referee under section 27(c) of the Judicature Act, the court is precluded from trying the referred question afresh and the suit remains pending until the referee's award is returned to court for final orders.
Civil Procedure — Execution Jurisdiction — High Court Residual Powers
Where the Supreme Court reinstates High Court orders for a special audit and directs the parties to report back to the High Court for consequential orders, the High Court retains residual jurisdiction over the conduct of the audit and the issuance of consequential and execution orders; the matter remains pending in the High Court and not the Supreme Court.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers (Rule 2(2) Supreme Court Rules) — Preservation of Property
The Supreme Court may invoke its inherent powers under rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules to issue an interim injunction preserving property pending conclusion of an ordered audit, so as to prevent the fruits of an affirmed judgment from being rendered nugatory and to prevent abuse of process through delay.

Legislation cited (30)

Cases cited (18)

  • Twinamasiko Onesmus v Agaba Aisa & Another (Election Petition No. 007 of 2021)
  • GH Gandesha & Another v GJ Lutaya (Civil Application No. 14 of 1989)
  • Sinba (le) Ltd & 4 Others v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2024)
  • Francis Micah vs Noah Watakira [1995-1999] 2 EA 191
  • Onyango Obbo & Another v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2022)
  • Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1997)
  • Mutindwa George William v Kisubika Joseph (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2014)
  • Kanabotic Group of Companies (U) Ltd v Sugar Corporation of (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1995)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Oil Seeds (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 15 of 1997)
  • Orient Bank Ltd v Frederick Zaabwe & Mars Trading Ltd (Civil Application No. 17 of 2007)
  • Theodore Sekikubo & Others v Attorney General & Others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2014)
  • Alcon International Ltd v New Vision Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd & Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2010)
  • McCarthy vs Agard [1933] 2 KB 417
  • Hon Zachary Olum & Hon Rainer Kafiire v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 1999)
  • American Cyanamid Co vs Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
  • Lakhamashi Brothers Ltd Vs Raja & Sons (1966) EA 313
  • Obote William v Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2017)
  • Wilson v Church (1879) 12 Ch. D 454

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

INCAFEX Limited v Rukikaire (Civil Application 8 of 2023) [2023] UGSC 68 (17 November 2023)
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.