M.Buwule v Stirling International Civil Engineering (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2000)
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 Registrar held that, by virtue of sections 11 and 45(2) of the Judicature Act, the Court of Appeal enjoys concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court in matters of execution and may execute its own orders, decrees and judgments. However, the Registrar held that the court (or its Registrar) has no jurisdiction to substitute a judgment debtor. Whether the assets and liabilities of the former respondent company had been transferred to the renamed company was a controversial question that could only be determined by a full panel of the court. The preliminary objection succeeded in part, and no costs were awarded.
Outcome
Preliminary objection partly upheld; question of substituting the judgment debtor reserved for determination by a full panel of the Court of Appeal
Facts
The appellant filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal against a High Court judgment on 21 February 2000. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court judgment and the respondent, Stirling International Civil Engineering (U) Ltd, appealed to the Supreme Court. According to the appellant, while the Supreme Court appeal was pending, the assets and liabilities of the respondent were transferred to Stirling Civil Engineering Ltd. The Supreme Court dismissed the respondent's appeal for non-prosecution on 14 October 2004. In execution proceedings, counsel for Stirling Civil Engineering Ltd raised a preliminary objection contending that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to execute its orders or to substitute a judgment debtor after judgment. The Registrar determined the objection.
Issues
- Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to execute its own orders, decrees or judgments.
- Whether the Registrar of the Court of Appeal has power to substitute a judgment debtor after judgment.
Orders
- Preliminary objection succeeded in part.
- Court of Appeal held to have concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court to execute its orders.
- Registrar held to have no jurisdiction to substitute a judgment debtor; that question reserved for a full panel.
- No costs awarded.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
Cases cited (1)
- Beatrice Kobusingye v Fiona Nyakana and George Nyakana (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2004)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.