Nyanzi v Nanyonga & Anor [2010] UGSC 24

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 ordinarily has no jurisdiction to hear an application for stay of execution, though a practice of doing so has evolved to serve justice. An interim order to stay execution will only be granted where there is convincing evidence of imminent danger that the subject matter of the dispute will suffer irreparable harm before the main application is heard, such that the appeal would be rendered nugatory. Here, no decree had been extracted, no execution proceedings had been filed, and the alleged survey and sale of the land were denied and unsupported by evidence, counsel for the applicant conceding the point. The court found the application speculative and without merit and dismissed it with costs.

Outcome

Application for an interim order to stay execution dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant sought an interim order to stay execution in Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2006 pending the hearing of his main application for a final order of stay of execution. He alleged that there was imminent danger of execution against him because the respondents were surveying the disputed land, which would render the appeal nugatory. The respondents denied any survey had been done or was envisaged, stating that the mailo certificate of title belonged to the Kabaka of Buganda, that the land was managed by the Buganda Land Board, and that the first respondent had occupied the land as a customary kibanja holder since 1956. The respondents had neither extracted a decree nor filed any application for execution of the High Court judgment in Civil Suit No. 208 of 2003 or the Court of Appeal judgment in Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2006, the Court of Appeal having merely declared the matter res judicata. At the hearing, the applicant's counsel conceded there were no pending execution proceedings and no evidence the respondents were planning to sell the land.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant established convincing evidence of imminent danger of irreparable harm to the subject matter so as to justify the grant of an interim order to stay execution pending the hearing of the main application for stay.

Orders

• The application for an interim order is dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Rules of the Supreme Court r.2(1)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.2(2)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.6(2)(b)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.42
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.50

Cases cited (1)

• THE ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL -Vs- NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY FUND & 2 OTHERS (Civil Application arising from Misc. Application No. 1 of 2009)

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