National Forestry Authority v Robert Wayeba (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2025)

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 single judge held that, although rule 41(1) of the Supreme Court Rules requires an application that may be made to either court to be made to the Court of Appeal first, the Court retains discretion under rule 41(2) read with rule 6(2)(b) to entertain it where a Notice of Appeal is on record. On the merits, an interim stay requires only a pending substantive application for stay and a serious threat of execution. Both were established: the substantive application was pending and a warrant of attachment of the applicant's vehicles proved imminent execution. The dilatory conduct of counsel could not be visited on the innocent client. The application was allowed.

Outcome

Interim stay of execution granted pending determination of the substantive application for stay (Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2025)

Facts

The High Court at Jinja entered an ex parte judgment against the applicant in February 2019. The applicant's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 26 February 2025. The applicant then lodged a Notice of Appeal in the Supreme Court on 10 March 2025 and, on 7 May 2025, filed both a substantive application for stay of execution (Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2025) and the present application for interim relief. The respondent obtained a warrant of attachment of three of the applicant's motor vehicles, issued on 5 May 2025, and the decretal amount had accumulated to Ushs. 523,000,000. The applicant sought to preserve the status quo and prevent the sale of the attached property pending determination of the substantive application and the pending appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court should entertain the application despite it not having been made first to the Court of Appeal as required by rule 41(1) of the Supreme Court Rules.
2. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of an interim order of stay of execution.

Orders

• An interim order does issue staying the execution of the orders in Civil Suit No. 128 of 2013 pending the determination of the substantive application for stay of execution (Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2025).
• Costs of this application to abide the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap.282 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rules 1 and 3
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 rule 2(2)
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 rule 6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 rule 41(1)
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 rule 72

Cases cited (10)

• Hwan Sung Industries Ltd v Taidin Hussein & 2 Others [2008] UGSC 29
• Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v Attorney General [2013] UGSC 21
• Theodore Ssekikubo & 2 Others v Attorney General & 3 Others [2014] UGSC 11
• Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businge [1990] UGSC 13
• Zubeda Mohammed & Another v Laila Kaka & Another [2017] UGSC 7
• Muhammed Mohamed Hamid v Roko Construction Ltd [2017] UGSC 47
• Attorney General v Eddie Kwizera; Electoral Commission v Eddie Kwizera [2020] UGSC 8
• Hassan Basajjabalaba & Another v Attorney General [2018] UGSC 56
• Wilson Mukiibi v James Semusambwa [2003] UGSC 52
• Uganda Revenue Authority v Nsubuga Guster & Another [2019] UGSC 15

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Elesh Chandrakant Gheewala v Mukta Chandrakant Gheewala and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 475 of 2026)

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