Wakilii

Katungulu & Another v Rwabuganda (Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2019)

Supreme Court · [2019] UGSC 98 · 2019 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to a single Justice of the Supreme Court for an interim order of stay of execution pending the disposal of a substantive application for review and stay of execution.
Decision
Interim application for stay of execution dismissed with costs

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.

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 single Justice dismissed an application for an interim stay of execution of a Supreme Court judgment. Because there is no right of appeal against the Supreme Court's decision and the applicants were not parties below, no notice of appeal had been (or could be) filed as required for a stay. The applicants asked the court to treat their pending application for review as analogous to a notice of appeal, but failed to show the special circumstances or reasonable likelihood of success that this requires: their bona fide purchaser claim remained a triable issue for a trial court and the judgment disclosed no error apparent on the record. As the foundational ground failed, the remaining grounds (nugatoriness and threat of execution) could not stand.

Outcome

Interim application for stay of execution dismissed with costs

Facts

The underlying dispute concerned land at Nakatakuli (Singo Block 783 Plot 3). Bitamisi Namuddu sued Godfrey Rwabuganda over the land; the Tribunal and High Court found for her, cancelling Rwabuganda's registration and granting vacant possession. The Court of Appeal reversed, restoring Rwabuganda's name, and the Supreme Court dismissed Namuddu's appeal, upholding the Court of Appeal. During that appeal an issue was raised that Namuddu had sold part of the suit land to the two applicants, who claimed to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice in possession since 2009. The Supreme Court declined to decide that claim, holding it a triable issue and a new matter outside the parties' pleadings. The applicants then filed an application for review of the Supreme Court judgment, a substantive application for stay, and the present application for an interim stay to preserve the status quo and forestall their threatened eviction pending those applications.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants' application for review of the Supreme Court's judgment could be treated as analogous to a notice of appeal so as to found jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution.
  2. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for the grant of an interim order of stay of execution pending the disposal of their substantive application for review and stay of execution.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Preconditions for an Interim Order
An applicant for an interim order of stay of execution must show a notice of appeal lodged with a request for certified copies, a substantive application for stay, a serious threat of execution, that the appeal and substantive application would be rendered nugatory without the order, a reasonable likelihood of success of the appeal, and that irreparable loss would otherwise be suffered.
Civil Procedure — Review of a Supreme Court Judgment — Application Treated as Analogous to a Notice of Appeal
Where no right of appeal exists against a decision of the Supreme Court, an application for review may be treated as analogous to a notice of appeal for the purpose of a stay of execution only where the applicant advances special reasons and demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that the review will succeed.
Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on the Face of the Record
A review of a Supreme Court judgment will not lie where there is no inconsistency in the decision or error apparent on the face of the record; a claim that remains a triable issue for determination by a trial court does not disclose such an error.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Interference With the Court's Own Judgment
The court cannot interfere with the execution of its own judgment merely because a suit has been filed in a lower court concerning the same subject matter.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.42
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.43(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.44
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.50
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.51
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.72
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.28(1)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.44(c)

Cases cited (8)

  • G. Afro v Uganda Breweries Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 12 of 2008)
  • Francis Drake Lubega v Attorney General & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2015)
  • Theodore Sekikubo & Others v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2014)
  • Alcon International Ltd v The New Vision Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd & Anor (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2010)
  • Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein & Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
  • Hon. Mukasa Mbidde & Hon. Micheal Mabikke v Law Development Centre (Miscellaneous Application No. 15 of 2015)
  • Kiganda John & Anor v Yakobo M.N. Ssenkungu (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 16 of 2017)
  • Belex Tours and Travel Ltd v Crane Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Katungulu & Another v Rwabuganda (Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2019) [2019] UGSC 98 (19 May 2019)
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.