Makerere University Business School and 2 Others v Dr. Akampumuza (Civil Application No. 265 of 2015)

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 staying High Court proceedings pending a substantive stay application. The applicants sought to halt judicial review proceedings after the trial Judge declined to hear their preliminary points of law before cross-examination concluded, directing instead that the points be addressed in written submissions and in his ruling. The Court found no capriciousness or error in the trial Judge's exercise of discretion, noting the applicants had been given full opportunity to address the preliminary points and had already filed submissions. As the matter awaited ruling, a stay was unnecessary and the balance of convenience favoured letting the trial Judge finalise the proceedings. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for interim order of stay dismissed with costs; trial Judge permitted to finalise the High Court proceedings

Facts

The respondent filed High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 310 of 2013 for review, challenging procedural impropriety in the appointment of the third applicant, breach of statute, and alleged illegal occupation of the office of Principal. Hearing commenced in November 2013, and parties cross-examined each other's witnesses. After a change of the applicants' counsel and adjournments, the resumed hearing was set for August 2015 for further cross-examination. At that hearing the applicants' counsel sought, without prior notice, to raise preliminary points of law: that the cause was time barred, disclosed no cause of action, and that the applicant lacked locus standi. Relying on Order 6 Rule 28 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the trial Judge directed that cross-examination be completed first and the points of law be dealt with in written submissions and in his ruling. Leave to appeal was refused. The applicants then sought from the Court of Appeal an interim stay of the High Court proceedings pending their substantive stay application, while the proceedings had advanced to await ruling.

Issues

1. Whether an interim order staying the High Court proceedings should be granted pending the hearing of the main application for stay.
2. Whether the trial Judge's refusal to allow preliminary points of law to be raised before completing cross-examination warranted appellate interference with his discretion.

Orders

• Application for an interim order of stay disallowed and dismissed.
• Costs to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 Rule 28

Cases cited (1)

• Mukisa Biscuits case

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.

• Akampumuza v Makerere University Business School & 2 Ors (Civil Application No. 275 of 2015)

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