Mukiibi v Hossan Evangelistic Mission & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 297 of 2017)

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 upheld a preliminary objection under Rule 42(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, holding that an application for stay of execution must first be made to the High Court unless special or rare circumstances exist. The applicant produced no proof that any formal application for stay had been filed and refused in the High Court, or that undue delay had occurred there. Rule 42(2) is subject to Rule 42(1), and mere submissions from the bar without evidence or pleading could not establish the required special circumstances. Having failed to demonstrate sufficient cause, the application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed on preliminary objection with no order as to costs

Facts

The applicant had instituted Civil Suit No. 874 of 2014 in the High Court, in which the court declared the 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents validly appointed as directors of the 1st respondent, with judgment delivered on 25th May 2016. Dissatisfied, the applicant filed a notice of appeal and requested proceedings. He then filed this application in the Court of Appeal on 21st September 2017 seeking an interim order of stay of execution pending determination of his main application for stay, contending the respondents were taking steps to enforce the decree and that his appeal would be rendered nugatory. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that under Rule 42(1) the application should have first been made to the High Court. The applicant argued from the bar that a stay application had been filed in the High Court in July 2017 but no judge was available, though no formal application or follow-up letter was produced in evidence.

Issues

1. Whether an application for an interim order of stay of execution can be made directly to the Court of Appeal without first being made to the High Court under Rule 42(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
2. Whether the applicant demonstrated special or rare circumstances justifying entertaining the application in the Court of Appeal first.

Orders

• The preliminary objection is allowed.
• Civil Application No. 295 of 2017 is dismissed.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.10
• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.12
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.2
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.6(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.42
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.43
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.44
• Civil Procedure Rules Order XXXIX rule 4(3)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order XLVIII rule 1

Cases cited (2)

• Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
• Olok Francis v Reverend William Pasha (Civil Application No. 59 of 2015)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

• Nakivubo Road Old Kampala (Kisekka) Market Vendors Limited and 3 Others v Kisembo and 4 Others [2024] UGSC 2
• Nakivubo Road Old Kampala (Kisekka) Market Vendors Limited and 5 Others v Kayita and 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2017)
• Nakivubo Road Old Kampala (Kisekka) Market Vendors Limited and 5 Others v Kayita and 3 Others (Consolidated Civil Appeals 266 of 2017; Consolidated Civil Appeals 297 of 2017) [2023

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