Robert Muhereza and Another v Victoria Sugar Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1781 of 2025)
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.
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
The Court held that there is no automatic right of appeal from an order denying leave to appear and defend under Order 36 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Leave to appeal must first be obtained before filing a notice of appeal. Where a notice of appeal has been filed without the right of appeal existing, the notice is incompetent and cannot form the basis for an application for stay of execution pending appeal. The application for stay of execution was dismissed with costs.
Outcome
Application dismissed for lack of competence due to absence of valid notice of appeal
Facts
The Respondent instituted a summary suit (Civil Suit No. 1534 of 2024) against the Applicants seeking a refund of UGX 280,000,000. The Applicants applied for leave to appear and defend but failed to show a bonafide triable issue. Leave was denied and judgment was entered against them on 27 May 2025 under Order 36 rule 5. The Applicants filed a notice of appeal (Civil Appeal No. 560 of 2025) without first seeking leave to appeal. The Respondent commenced execution proceedings by filing Taxation Application No. 378 of 2025. The Applicants then filed this application seeking to stay execution pending determination of their appeal.
Issues
- Whether an order of stay of execution in Miscellaneous Application No. 214 of 2025 arising from Civil Suit No. 1534 of 2024 should be granted?
- Whether there is an automatic right of appeal under Order 36 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules?
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- The preliminary objection is upheld.
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Judicature Act Cap. 16 s.37
- Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.76
- Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 6 rule 28
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 15 rule 3
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 36 rule 5
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 43 rule 4
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 44 rule 1(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 44 rule 1(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 rules 1 and 2
Cases cited (6)
- Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
- Uganda Telecom Ltd v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
- Zubeda Mohamed and Another v Laila Kaka Wallia and Another (Supreme Court Civil Reference No. 07 of 2016)
- DFCU Bank Ltd v Donna Kamuli (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 29 of 2019)
- Hon. Nakato Kyabanji Katusiime v Kenroy Investments Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 177 of 2014)
- Lukwago Erias v KCCA (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 06 of 2014)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.