Wakilii

Kalisa v Karumu & 2 Ors (Civil Reference No 139 of 2013)

Court of Appeal · [2014] UGCA 16 · 2014 Reference Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a bench of three Justices from the ruling of a single Justice of Appeal, itself arising from a reference from a decision of the Registrar refusing an interim order of stay of execution
Decision
Reference dismissed; the practice of referring Registrars' decisions under enhanced powers to a single Justice streamlined, such matters to be determined by a bench of three Justices

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 Court held that Practice Direction No. 1 of 2004 enhanced Registrars' powers to exercise certain interlocutory functions of a single Justice under section 12(1) of the Judicature Act. Consequently, a party dissatisfied with such a Registrar's decision must have the matter determined by a bench of three Justices under section 12(2), not by a reference to a single Justice, as no law provides for that route. The Court agreed with Justice Kakuru that no inherent or inferred right of reference lies from a Registrar to a single Justice. It further held that a Registrar may not issue interim orders staying execution or proceedings of a High Court Judge. Both grounds of the reference failed and the reference was dismissed.

Outcome

Reference dismissed; the practice of referring Registrars' decisions under enhanced powers to a single Justice streamlined, such matters to be determined by a bench of three Justices

Facts

The applicant, Mohamed Kalisa, sought an interim order of stay of execution pending the outcome of a related miscellaneous application. An Assistant Registrar of the Court of Appeal declined to grant the interim order. The applicant made a reference to a single Justice of Appeal, Justice Kenneth Kakuru, who dismissed the reference on the basis that there was no right of reference from a Registrar's decision to a single Justice, an appeal being a creature of statute. The applicant, dissatisfied, made a further reference to a bench of three Justices, contending that the single Justice had jurisdiction to hear the reference and erred in rejecting it without considering its merits. The respondents opposed the reference and supported the single Justice's ruling. The underlying dispute arose from High Court judgment delivered on 13 May 2013, with the interim order application filed in the Court of Appeal on 21 May 2013 before any execution process had commenced.

Issues

  1. Whether a single Justice of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain a reference from the decision of a Registrar exercising enhanced powers under Practice Direction No. 1 of 2004.
  2. Whether the single Justice erred in rejecting the applicant's reference without considering its merits.
  3. Whether a Registrar of the Court of Appeal, exercising enhanced powers under Practice Direction No. 1 of 2004, may issue interim orders staying execution or proceedings of a High Court Judge.

Orders

  • The reference is dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs here and below.

Rules and key headnotes

Court of Appeal — Enhanced Powers of Registrars — Practice Direction No. 1 of 2004 as Case Management Tool
Practice Direction No. 1 of 2004 confers enhanced powers on Registrars of the Court of Appeal as a case management tool to ensure expeditious disposal of cases; it does not remove jurisdiction from Justices, and Registrars exercise these powers on behalf of the Court.
Court of Appeal — Reference from Registrar — No Statutory Right of Reference to a Single Justice
There is no inherent, inferred or assumed right of appeal or reference from the decision of a Registrar exercising enhanced powers under Practice Direction No. 1 of 2004 to a single Justice of Appeal; such powers are interlocutory powers of a single Justice under section 12(1) of the Judicature Act, and a dissatisfied party must have the matter determined by a bench of three Justices under section 12(2).
Appeals and References — Creature of Statute — Distinction Between Reference and Appeal
A right of appeal or reference is a creature of statute and cannot be inferred; where the words reference or referred appear in the Court of Appeal Rules the procedure is informal, and such a reference may take the form of an appeal only where expressly provided for by law or rule.
Court of Appeal — Interim Orders — Registrar Cannot Stay Execution or Proceedings of a High Court Judge
A Registrar of the Court of Appeal, exercising enhanced powers under Practice Direction No. 1 of 2004, may not issue an interim order staying the execution or proceedings of a High Court Judge; such intrusive orders should be made by a Justice of Appeal exercising powers under section 12(1) of the Judicature Act.
Stay of Execution — Exhaustion of Remedies — Bypassing the Lower Court
A party ordinarily should apply to the court that made the order to stay its own order pending appeal, allowing exhaustion of remedies before the appellate court; bypassing the lower court to seek an interim stay directly from the Court of Appeal may evidence poor case management or an abuse of process.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (13)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1999)
  • Motor Mart (U) Ltd v Yona Kanyomozi (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1999)
  • Gold Trust v Banax Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1995)
  • Burundi Tobacco Co. SARL and Another v British American Tobacco (U) Ltd (Civil Reference No. 22 of 2010)
  • Mandela Auto Spares v Marketing Information Systems Ltd (Civil Reference No. 74 of 2008)
  • Florah Ramarungu v DFCU Leasing Co Ltd (Civil Application No. 11 of 2009)
  • Muwema & Mugerwa Advocates v Shell (U) Ltd and 10 Others (Civil Appeal No. 018 of 2011)
  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank and Others (Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2006)
  • Buteera Edward v Mutalemwa Godfrey (Civil Reference No. 70 of 2013)
  • Hwan Sung Industries v Tajdin Hussein and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2008)
  • Mbogo v Shah [1968] EA 93
  • Bagonza and 9 Others v Kimala and 4 Others (Civil Reference No. 63 of 2013)
  • Herman Kaliisa v Gladys Nyangire and Others (Civil Reference No. 116 of 2013)

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.

Kalisa v Karumu & 2 Ors (Civil Reference No 139 of 2013) [2014] UGCA 16 (21 May 2014)
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.