Wakilii

Kato & Anor v Nalwoga (Civil Application 12 of 2011)

Supreme Court · [2011] UGSC 23 · 2011 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for an interim order of stay of execution pending determination of a substantive application for stay, arising from a Court of Appeal judgment.
Decision
Application for an interim stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 9 (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 9 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 11 citing cases on record, 6 in the most recent three data years. 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

On an application for an interim stay of execution, the Supreme Court held that while an interim stay requires only proof of a pending substantive application and a serious threat of execution, the applicants' conduct disentitled them to relief. Counsel filed the application directly in the Supreme Court rather than first in the Court of Appeal under Rule 41, withheld the Court of Appeal judgment by attaching only the decree, failed to serve the respondent with the substantive application, and failed to consult the respondent's counsel. The court found this conduct indicative of bad faith and an abuse of process, and dismissed the application with costs.

Outcome

Application for an interim stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Facts

The respondent was the registered proprietor of land at Kyadondo Block 215 Plot 975, Kulambiro. The applicants bought "bibanja" on that land from third parties and sued the respondent in the High Court claiming to be lawful owners; the respondent counterclaimed as registered proprietor and sought damages. The High Court found for the applicants. On appeal in Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2009, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, ordered the applicants evicted as trespassers, ordered them to pay the respondent Shs.100,000,000 in damages, and awarded costs in both courts. The applicants filed a Notice of Appeal and requested the proceedings. After the respondent extracted a decree and filed a bill of costs with a taxation hearing set, the applicants filed in the Supreme Court the present application for an interim stay together with a substantive application for stay. The applicants reside outside the country. The respondent opposed the application as premature and meritless.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for the grant of an interim order of stay of execution, namely a pending substantive application and a serious threat of execution.
  2. Whether the application was properly brought directly in the Supreme Court without first applying to the Court of Appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of the Court.
  3. Whether the application was brought in good faith or amounted to an abuse of the court's process.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Interim Order — Conditions for Grant
For an interim order of stay of execution it suffices to show that a substantive application for stay is pending and that there is a serious threat of execution before the hearing of the substantive application; the court need not pre-empt the matters relevant to the substantive application, but may require special circumstances such as the immediate destruction of the suit property.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Concurrent Jurisdiction — Rule 41 Requirement to Apply First to the Court of Appeal
Where an application may be made either to the Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeal, it must first be made to the Court of Appeal; the Supreme Court may entertain such an application without a prior application to the Court of Appeal only in the exercise of its discretion in special and rare circumstances where the justice of the case requires it.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Process — Bad Faith — Dismissal of Application
An application for a stay of execution may be dismissed as an abuse of process where it is brought in bad faith, including by bypassing the court that heard the appeal, withholding the impugned judgment from the court, and failing to serve or consult the opposing party with the substantive application.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Supreme Court Rules r.2(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.6(2)(b)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.41(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.41(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.42(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.42(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.72
  • Supreme Court Rules r.27

Cases cited (4)

  • Hwan Sung Industries Ltd v Tojdin Hussein and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
  • Alcon International Ltd v New Vision Printing and Publishing Co Ltd and Others (Civil Application No. 04 of 2010)
  • Dr. Ahmed Mohamed Kisuule v Greenland Bank (In Liquidation) (Civil Application No. 10 of 2010)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)

Cases citing this judgment (9)

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.

Kato & Anor v Nalwoga (Civil Application 12 of 2011) [2011] UGSC 23 (30 June 2011)
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.