MP Electronics Limited & Another v Kamani & 2 Others (Civil Application 614 of 2024)

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 dismissed the respondents' preliminary objections, holding that the High Court and Court of Appeal have concurrent jurisdiction over stay applications and that the application properly arose from a related appeal and reference concerning the same subject matter; the approbation-and-reprobation objection was deferred to the hearing of the appeal. On the merits, applying the Ssekikubo principles, the court found the applicants had established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success on appeal and that they would suffer irreparable damage, there being an imminent threat of losing possession of the suit properties. The balance of convenience need not be considered. The court granted a stay of execution pending the hearing of the appeal and reference.

Outcome

Application allowed; execution of the High Court possessory orders stayed pending hearing and disposal of the appeal and reference

Facts

The applicants, two electronics companies, disputed mortgage securities over their commercial properties in Kampala's Industrial Area and South Street, asserting they had been duped into signing credit facility agreements with the defunct Crane Bank and never received the loan funds, which DFCU Bank later demanded. The respondents became registered proprietors of the suit properties. In HCMA No. 124 of 2024 the High Court granted the respondents proprietary possessory rights to enjoy the economic benefits of the properties. The applicants appealed (Civil Appeal No. 0465 of 2024) and pursued a related reference (Civil Reference No. 0036 of 2024). They contended the High Court orders were made in disregard of a subsisting Court of Appeal interim order restraining the respondents from taking possession. There was evidence that police had attended one property, Plot 88 South Street, demanding that tenants pay rent to the third respondent or vacate, while the applicants remained in possession. The applicants sought a stay of execution to preserve possession pending determination of the appeal and reference.

Issues

1. Whether the application for stay of execution should be made first to the High Court, and whether the applicants demonstrated exceptional circumstances justifying a direct application to the Court of Appeal.
2. Whether the applicants' failure to seek leave to appeal the High Court orders barred the application.
3. Whether the application improperly arose from two unrelated appeals and references.
4. Whether the application offended the principle that a party may not approbate and reprobate.
5. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal.

Orders

• Execution of the ruling/orders issued in High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0124 of 2024 granting the respondents proprietary possessory rights of enjoyment of the economic benefits of the applicants' properties (LRV 330 Folio 11 Plot 56 Seventh Street Industrial Area; LRV 301 Folio 21 Plot 58 Seventh Street Industrial Area; LRV 4009 Folio 11 Plot 88 South Street) is stayed pending the hearing and disposal of Civil Reference No. 0036 of 2024 and Civil Appeal No. 0465 of 2024.
• Costs of this application will follow the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Constitution of Uganda art.28(1)
• Constitution of Uganda art.126(2)(e)
• Judicature Act s.33
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.42(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.42(2)(b)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.44 r.1(1)

Cases cited (12)

• Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
• Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkundige (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
• Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and 2 others v International Credit Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) (2004) 2 EA 331
• Lawrence Musitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
• Lukutago Erias v Attorney General and KCCA (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2014)
• P.K. Sengendo v Busuluta and Male Abdu (Civil Application No. 207 of 2014)
• Geoffrey Nangumya v Gulf Stream Investment (U) Ltd and 5 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 847 of 2022)
• Kaingana v Dabo Boubou (1986) HCB 59
• Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 347 of 2013)
• American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 504
• Salome Nakwanyi Keen and 7 Others V Alice Wanjiru Wanjohi Administratrix of the estate of Francis Wanjohi Ndirangu (Deceased) (2019) e KLR Civil Application No.326 of 2013
• Teddy Sseezi Cheeye and Another v Enos Tumusiime (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 21 of 1996)

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.

• Simon Peter Ongodia v Apuda Ignatius Loyola (Civil Application No. 490 of 2024)

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