Mukiibi v Semusambwa (Civil Application 9 of 2003)

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.

Holding

A single judge of the Supreme Court may, in exercise of the Court's inherent powers, grant an interim order for stay of execution notwithstanding that Rule 49(2) excludes a single judge from hearing a substantive stay application. However, such an order will issue only in compelling circumstances to prevent the substantive application being rendered nugatory, and is not a substitute for the substantive stay procedure. Here the applicant failed to show that eviction was imminent or that he would suffer irreparable loss, and showed no good cause why the respondent should not be heard. The application was dismissed.

Outcome

Application for an interim order for stay of execution dismissed; substantive stay application remains pending before the full bench.

Facts

The applicant claimed a leasehold interest in land at Mukono. On 17 December 2002 the Court of Appeal ordered him to give vacant possession of the land to the respondent. Intending to appeal to the Supreme Court against that order, the applicant filed a substantive application for stay of execution to be heard inter partes by a full bench, which remained pending without a hearing date. Pending that hearing he brought this application to a single judge for an interim order for stay, asserting that the respondent was likely to evict him and demolish developments on the land of sentimental value, rendering the substantive application nugatory. He relied on a notice to give vacant possession dated 23 May 2003. The respondent had taken no fresh step to evict since May and was awaiting a Court of Appeal ruling on his own application to renew the warrant of eviction.

Issues

1. Whether a single judge of the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to grant an interim order for stay of execution pending the hearing of a substantive stay application.
2. Whether the applicant established sufficient cause to warrant the grant of an interim order for stay of execution.

Orders

• Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Rules of the Supreme Court r.1(3)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.5(2)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.41
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.46(2)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.49(1)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.49(2)

Cases cited (1)

• Horizon Coaches Ltd vs. Francis Mwabazi & Others, Civil Application No. 1 of 2001

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