Wakilii

Mayanja & 2 Others v Habre International Trading Co. Limited (Miscellaneous Application 68 of 1990)

High Court · [1990] UGHC 35 · 1990 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex parte application for stay of execution pending appeal from Mengo Court decision
Decision
Interim stay granted; matter to proceed to inter partes hearing for final stay determination

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 High Court refused to grant a final ex parte stay order, holding that final orders for stay should not ordinarily be made without notice to the decree-holder. The court granted an interim stay order based on the risk that applicants' permanent residences on the disputed land would be demolished before appeal disposal. The court directed service on the respondent within 30 days for a hearing on final stay.

Outcome

Interim stay granted; matter to proceed to inter partes hearing for final stay determination

Facts

The applicants were defendants in Mengo Court Civil Suit No. GK 562 of 1989. They sought stay of execution pending appeal through an ex parte chamber application under Order 59 Rule 1(1) and (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 65(e) and 101 of the Civil Procedure Act. The applicants had permanent residences with buildings on disputed land. They faced risk of eviction and demolition of their buildings before their appeal could be determined. Counsel informed the court he had visited the land and seen the structures.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should grant an ex parte final order for stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. Whether the applicants satisfied the requirements for interim stay of execution.

Orders

  • Final order for stay of execution refused.
  • Interim order for stay of execution granted.
  • Applicants to serve notice on respondent and fix a hearing date for final stay order within 30 days.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Ex Parte Orders — Final Orders
A final order staying execution should not ordinarily be made ex parte without notice to the decree-holder, even though the court has discretion under Order 59 Rule 1(4) to make ex parte stay orders.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Ex Parte Applications — Requirements
An applicant seeking an ex parte stay order must clearly set out in the affidavit and chamber summons the necessity to dispense with service upon the respondent and must make out a case satisfying the court to exercise its discretion in the applicant's favour.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Interim Orders — Exceptional Circumstances
While an interim stay order can be granted pending disposal of the application without notice to the decree-holder, such orders should only be made in very exceptional cases.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

  • Charles Kasirye v M.D. [1972] EALR 106
  • Singh v Runda Coffee [1966] SA 263

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mayanja & 2 Others v Habre International Trading Co. Limited (Miscellaneous Application 68 of 1990) [1990] UGHC 35 (8 November 1990)
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.