Mwesigwa v Petro(Uganda) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 0162 of 2012)

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

The single justice held that under section 12(1) of the Judicature Act, a single justice of the Court of Appeal may exercise the court's powers only in an interlocutory cause or matter pending before the Court of Appeal. Read in harmony with Rule 53 of the Court of Appeal Rules, a single justice may hear an interim stay application where a main application is pending before the full bench. Here, Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2009 was concluded and no matter was pending before the Court of Appeal; only a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court had been filed. The single justice therefore had no jurisdiction to grant a stay pending appeal to the Supreme Court. The application was incompetent and struck out with costs.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution struck out as incompetent for want of jurisdiction of a single justice

Facts

Petro (Uganda) Limited obtained judgment against the applicant in HCCS No. 633 of 2004 (Commercial Division) for special damages of approximately UGX 536,000,239 with interest at 21%, plus nominal damages. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2009, which was dismissed with costs on 4 April 2019. Being dissatisfied, the applicant filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court and requested a record of proceedings. The applicant then applied to a single justice of the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution of the Court of Appeal judgment, contending that execution would render the intended appeal nugatory and cause substantial loss, and that he was willing to provide security. The respondent argued the appeal had no prospect of success, that it had long been deprived of its money (the debt having escalated to over UGX 2 billion), and that as a going concern it could refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded.

Issues

1. Whether a single justice of the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction under section 12 of the Judicature Act and Rule 53 of the Court of Appeal Rules to hear an application for stay of execution.
2. Whether a single justice may grant a stay of execution of a concluded Court of Appeal judgment pending appeal to the Supreme Court where there is no interlocutory matter pending before the Court of Appeal.

Orders

• The applicant's application is struck out with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.12
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 53
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Rule 6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Rule 76(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Rule 2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Rule 3
• Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Rule 2(2)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 135(1)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 132(2)

Cases cited (10)

• Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Atabya Agencies Ltd (Civil Application No. 31 of 2004)
• Wilson Mukiibi v James Semusambwa (Civil Application No. 9 of 2003)
• Florah Ramarungu v DFCU Leasing Co. Ltd (Civil Application No. 11 of 2009)
• Outreach to Africa Limited v Stephen Manigamukama (Civil Application No. 304 of 2015)
• Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkundiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
• Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
• Hajj Ali Cheboi v Kiboko Mesulamu (Miscellaneous Application No. 105 of 2014)
• Kampala Bottlers v Uganda Bottlers Ltd (not supplied)
• Wilson v Church (1879) 12 Ch D 454
• Somali Democratic Republic v Anoop Sunderial Trean (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1988)

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