Wakilii

Miwanda and 9 Others v Kalule and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 612 of 2022)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 224 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal to extend the operation of an interim order of stay of execution.
Decision
Interim order of stay of execution granted for three months.

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

Sitting as a single Justice, the Court of Appeal held that the applicants satisfied the three conditions for an interim order of stay of execution: a competent notice of appeal, a pending substantive application, and a serious threat of execution. Rejecting the respondents' functus officio objection, the court reasoned that temporary orders are not permanent and may lawfully be granted or replaced under Rules 2(2) and 43. The court granted an interim stay for three months to enable the parties to obtain a hearing date for the substantive applications, with costs to abide the outcome of the substantive applications and/or the main appeal.

Outcome

Interim order of stay of execution granted for three months.

Facts

This court had earlier granted an interim order staying execution of the decree in High Court Civil Suit No. 573 of 2016, to operate for four months. The order, first made by Remmy Kasule JA Ag on 14 June 2021, was later resuscitated by Hellen Obura JA, who directed that the stay run for four months from 12 April 2022, due to expire on 13 August 2022. With the substantive applications for temporary stay (Civil Applications No. 85 and 95 of 2021) and the main appeal not yet scheduled despite a scheduling conference, the applicants sought an extension of the interim stay. The respondents had commenced execution and the High Court had issued a Notice to Show Cause on 4 February 2022. The respondents opposed the application, arguing the Judge was functus officio and could not extend an interim order that had already lapsed.

Issues

  1. Whether a single Justice of the Court of Appeal could extend the operation of an interim order of stay of execution.
  2. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for the grant of an interim order of stay of execution.
  3. Whether the court was functus officio in relation to extending the interim order of stay.

Orders

  • An interim order for stay of execution is granted to last for three (3) months.
  • Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the substantive Civil Applications No. 85 and 95 of 2021 and/or the main appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Interim Order Pending Substantive Application
An applicant for an interim order of stay of execution must satisfy three conditions: a competent notice of appeal, a pending substantive application, and a serious threat of execution before the hearing of that substantive application.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Functus Officio — Temporary Orders Not Permanent
The doctrine of functus officio does not bar a court from granting or renewing an interim order of stay of execution, because temporary orders are not permanent in nature and last only until they expire or are replaced by another temporary order, and may be lawfully granted under Rules 2(2) and 43 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules.
Civil Procedure — Single Justice — Powers and Remedy of Dissatisfied Party under Judicature Act s.12
A single justice of the Court of Appeal may exercise any power vested in the Court in an interlocutory matter, and a party dissatisfied with that decision is entitled under section 12(2) of the Judicature Act to have the matter determined by a bench of three justices, which may confirm, vary or reverse the decision.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Judicature Act s.12(1)
  • Judicature Act s.12(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.2
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.6
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.43(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.43(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.44
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.76

Cases cited (4)

  • Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin and 2 others
  • Zubeda Mohammad and Another v Laila Kaka Wajja and Another (Civil Reference No. 7 of 2016)
  • Orient Bank Limited v Fredrick Zaabwe (Civil Application No. 17 of 2007)
  • Goodman Agencies Ltd v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Miwanda and 9 Others v Kalule and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 612 of 2022) [2022] UGCA 224 (12 August 2022)
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.