Kerilee Investments Ltd v Krone (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 227 of 2017)

Observed later treatment

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 of Appeal dismissed an application for an interim order of stay of execution. Applying Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein, the Court held that an interim order requires a pending substantive application together with evidence of a serious and imminent threat of execution. The applicant adduced no convincing evidence of such a threat: no warrant of execution had been issued or even applied for, and the order in question was a self-executing temporary injunction. The Court found no justification for granting the order and dismissed the application with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Application for interim order of stay of execution dismissed with costs

Facts

The respondent had obtained a temporary injunction in High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 823 of 2017 (before Namundi J) ordering the applicant to vacate Nyamuliro Mines, restraining it from further management of the mine for the duration of the head suit, and directing it to remove its employees and allow the respondent to take possession. The applicant, dissatisfied, filed a Notice of Appeal and a substantive application for stay of execution (Civil Application No. 226 of 2017). Pending that application's determination, the applicant sought an interim order of stay, contending the respondent had instructed a bailiff to execute the order, that some 15,000 people derived a livelihood from the mine, and that it had invested over USD 2 million in the mine. The respondent argued there was no executable order capable of warranted execution, the injunction being self-executing, and that no bailiff had been named.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant established a serious and imminent threat of execution justifying the grant of an interim order of stay of execution pending determination of the substantive application for stay.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Judicature Act Cap. 13 s.12
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 43-10 Rule 2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 43-10 Rule 6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 43-10 Rule 42(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 43-10 Rule 44

Cases cited (4)

• Commissioner Customs Uganda Revenue Authority v Kayumba Emily Ogenyi (Civil Application No. 62 of 2014)
• Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein and Others (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
• Joel Kato and Margrate Kato v Nalulu Nalwoga (Civil Application No. 12 of 2011)
• Uganda Revenue Authority v East African Property Holdings Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 144 of 2014)

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.

• Nansamba Aidah and Another v Asasira Honest alias Peace (MISC. APPLICATION NO.258 OF 2023)

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