Wakilii

Nakato and Another v Busonga and Another (Civil Application 664 of 2023)

Court of Appeal · [2023] UGCA 253 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal for a certificate of urgency to have a pending application for stay of execution heard during court vacation
Decision
Certificate of urgency granted so that the pending application for stay of execution may be heard during court vacation

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 5 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 5 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations steady — 20 citing cases on record, 20 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

On an application for a certificate of urgency to have a stay-of-execution application heard during the August court vacation, the single Justice held that, to displace the court's First-In-First-Out timetabling, an applicant must prove a special feature showing the matter requires speedy action under Rule 21. The imminent and admitted threat of execution of the High Court decree, coupled with the applicants' physical possession of the disputed land, satisfied the urgency threshold, since any delay might render the pending stay application nugatory. The court granted the certificate of urgency and awarded the costs of the application to the applicants.

Outcome

Certificate of urgency granted so that the pending application for stay of execution may be heard during court vacation

Facts

The applicants were the unsuccessful parties in a High Court (Land Division) civil suit in which the respondents were declared lawful owners of land comprised in Kibuga Block 7 Plots 968 and 969, the applicants were declared trespassers, a permanent injunction was issued, and the respondents were awarded UGX 150,000,000 in general damages, interest at 10% per annum, and costs. The applicants filed a notice of appeal and a memorandum and record of appeal (Civil Appeal No. 108 of 2023). After the trial judge dismissed their stay application as functus officio, they filed an application for stay of execution in the Court of Appeal, and then this application for a certificate of urgency to have that stay application heard during the August court vacation. Respondents' counsel admitted that steps had been commenced to enforce the High Court decree, and the applicants remained in physical possession of the disputed land.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants demonstrated that their application for stay of execution was a matter of urgency warranting a certificate to have it heard during court vacation under Rule 21 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions.

Orders

  • A certificate of urgency is granted.
  • The costs of this application are awarded to the applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Court Vacation — Certificate of Urgency — Rule 21 Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions
No business is conducted during a court vacation except the delivery of judgment and, where a matter is shown to be one of urgency, the hearing of applications and the taxation of bills; an applicant seeking to have a matter heard during vacation must therefore bring it within the urgency exception in Rule 21 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions.
Civil Procedure — Timetabling — First-In-First-Out Policy — Special Features
Because the setting of hearing dates follows the court's First-In-First-Out policy to ensure equal treatment of litigants, an applicant seeking preferential timetabling must prove special features showing that the matter requires speedy action so as to justify an exception to that policy.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Urgency — Risk of Application Being Rendered Nugatory
An imminent and admitted threat to execute a decree, where the affected party remains in physical possession of disputed land, constitutes a special feature of urgency justifying a certificate of urgency, since any delay might render a pending application for stay of execution nugatory.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Patrick M. Omony (Civil Application No. 305 of 2023)
  • Dalte Europe Ltd (in Liquidation) Vs Makki [EWHC] 1631 (Ch)
  • Eli Lilly and Company v Human Genome Sciences Inc [2012] EWHC 2857 (Pat)

Cases citing this judgment (5)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakato and Another v Busonga and Another (Civil Application 664 of 2023) [2023] UGCA 253 (29 August 2023)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.