Wakilii

John Matovu Mulindwa & 19 others v Naiga Rosemary, Masengere Stephen & Magandazi Lubega Aloysious (Miscellaneous Application 95 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 32 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending determination of review application
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the 1st and 2nd respondents

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

Held that the High Court has no power to review its judgment given on appeal under any special jurisdiction. Applications for review must be filed to the same court and judge that made the decision. Order 22 rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules is limited to judgment debtors and cannot be invoked by third parties. The application for stay of execution lacked merit and was procedurally irregular, as applicants sought review of an appellate decision already upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the 1st and 2nd respondents

Facts

The applicants claimed to be sub-clan heads and customary beneficial owners of land comprised in Kibuga Block 35 Plot 53 at Mutundwe, Rubaga Division. In Civil Suit No. 005 of 2004, the 1st and 2nd respondents sued the 3rd respondent in the Chief Magistrate's Court. The trial magistrate ruled in favour of the 3rd respondent. On appeal (Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2010), the High Court reversed the decision and ordered the 3rd respondent to vacate the suit kibanja. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision in Civil Appeal No. 110 of 2013. In March 2023, a warrant of vacant possession was issued against the 3rd respondent. The applicants learned of the eviction in May 2023 and filed Miscellaneous Application No. 94 of 2024 seeking review and setting aside of the High Court decree. They then filed this application seeking stay of execution pending determination of the review application. The applicants were never parties to the original proceedings in the Magistrate's Court, High Court, or Court of Appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the decree in Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2010 can be stayed pending the determination of Miscellaneous Application No. 94 of 2024

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the 1st and 2nd respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Applicability of Order 22 Rule 23 — Limitation to Judgment Debtors
Order 22 rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules can only be invoked at the instance of the judgment debtor where a decree has been sent to another court for execution. The order is limited in its applicability to the judgment debtor and cannot be invoked by any other person in whichever capacity they hold out to be.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers of Court — Stay of Execution — Judicial Discretion
The court has inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to order a stay of execution. The exercise of this power is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised judicially, and the availability of an alternative remedy or specific provisions is only one of the factors to be taken into account but does not limit or remove the court's jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success — Consideration of Main Application
In determining an application for stay of execution, the court may consider the likelihood of success of the main application from which the stay application emanates. The court may highlight a significant procedural or legal flaw that could render the main application futile from the beginning in assessing the likelihood of success.
Civil Procedure — Review — High Court Powers — Appellate Jurisdiction
The High Court has no power to review its judgment given on appeal under any special jurisdiction. Applications for review should be filed to the same court and judge that made the decision.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (5)

  • National Union of Clerical, Commercial and Technical Employees v National Insurance Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Peter Mulira v Mitchell Cotts Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 715 of 2009)
  • Imelda Nandaula v Uganda Development Bank Ltd (High Court Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1992)
  • Re Dr John Chrizestom Kiyimba Kato (Miscellaneous Cause No. 29 of 1989)
  • Erimiya Serunkuma v Elizabeth Nandyose [1959] EA 127

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.

John_Matovu_Mulindwa_&_19_others_v_Naiga_Rosemary,_Masengere_Stephen_&_Magandazi_Lubega_Aloysious_(Miscellaneous_Application_95_of_2024)_[2024]_UGHCLD_32_(12_February_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.