Kategaya Betsimbire v Sebaliga and Another (Civil Application 288 of 2019)

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.

Holding

The Court dismissed an application for stay of execution as incompetent. The applicant's Notice of Appeal referred to High Court Civil Suit No. 414 of 2010, which did not exist between the parties; the actual suit was Civil Suit No. 634 of 2007. As there was no valid Notice of Appeal arising from the correct suit, there was no basis for a stay. Additionally, the applicant failed to comply with Rule 42(1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal, which requires the application to be first made to the High Court, and offered no explanation or special circumstances justifying the omission. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant sought an order staying execution of a decree and maintaining the status quo of suit property comprised in LRV 453 Folio 2, Plot 480 Muyenga, Kampala, pending determination of her appeal. The underlying dispute concerned ownership of the suit property, decided in High Court Civil Suit No. 634 of 2007, in which judgment was delivered on 22 August 2019 by Justice Henry I. Kawesa in favour of the respondent. However, the applicant's Notice of Appeal referred to High Court Civil Suit No. 414 of 2010, a suit which did not exist between the parties. At the hearing, the applicant took no steps to rectify or clarify the discrepancy, her counsel merely remarking that the matter of the correct suit was not serious. The applicant also failed to first pursue the application in the High Court as required, and offered no explanation for the omission.

Issues

1. Whether the application for stay of execution was competent where the Notice of Appeal referred to a suit that did not exist between the parties.
2. Whether the applicant complied with Rule 42(1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal requiring the application to be first pursued in the High Court.

Orders

• The application is held to be incompetent in law and in fact.
• The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.2(2)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.6(2)(b)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.43(1)(2)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.44
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.42(1)

Cases cited (2)

• Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
• Aids Health Foundation v Dr. Stephen Mirembe Kizito (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 147 of 2014)

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