Mugerwa v Mugubi & Another (Civil Application 15 of 2022)

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

On an application for an interim order to stay execution, a single Justice of the Supreme Court reaffirmed that an applicant must establish a competent notice of appeal, a substantive application for stay pending in court, and a serious threat of execution. While a competent notice of appeal was admitted, the document relied on as the substantive application was unsigned, unnumbered and unsealed by the registry, and so remained a mere draft incapable of being pending for hearing. The alleged threat of execution rested on speculation unsupported by evidence; under section 103 of the Evidence Act the burden lay on the applicant. Two of the three conditions being unproved, the application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for interim order to stay execution dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

The applicant sought an interim order to stay execution of orders of the Court of Appeal in Civil Application No. 84 of 2021, pending the hearing of a main application for stay of execution. He asserted that he had filed a notice of appeal and a substantive application for stay in the Supreme Court, and that the respondents were likely to execute the Court of Appeal's orders, exposing him to eviction from the suit land. The respondents contended that no order had been approved or extracted for execution, that the purported substantive application was unsigned, unnumbered and unsealed by the registry, and that the application was therefore premature and unfounded. The notice of appeal, filed on 30 March 2022, was admitted. The document relied on as the substantive application, uploaded through the ECCMIS system on 14 April 2022, bore no signature, application number or court seal, and the registrar had not signed it.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant fulfilled the conditions required for the grant of an interim order to stay execution.
2. Whether a competent substantive application for stay of execution was pending before the Court.
3. Whether there was a serious or imminent threat of execution.

Orders

• Application for interim order dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) SI 13-11 Rule 2(2)
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) SI 13-11 Rule 6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) SI 13-11 Rule 42(1)
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) SI 13-11 Rule 50
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) SI 13-11 Rule 51
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) SI 13-11 Rule 72
• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.103

Cases cited (5)

• Hwansung Industries Limited v Tajdin and Others (Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2008)
• Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
• Zubeda Mohammed and Another v Laila Kaka Wallia and Others (Civil Reference No. 7 of 2016)
• Yakobo Senkungu and Others v Cerensio Mukasa (Civil Application No. 5 of 2013)
• Giuliano Garigio v Claudio Casadio (Civil Application No. 3 of 2013)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Jjunju and Another v Zalwango and Another (Miscellaneous Application 2639 of 2023) followed
• Jjunju and Another v Zalwango and Another (Miscellaneous Application 2639 of 2023) followed

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