Roughton International Ltd and Others v Uganda Investment Authority and Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority [2025] UGCA 160

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 Justice held that the application for stay of execution must be dismissed. The High Court order being challenged simply dismissed the applicants' application 'with costs to abide the outcome of the arbitral proceedings'; it was a negative order that neither determined the parties' rights nor compelled any party to act or refrain from acting. Such an order is not capable of being executed and is accordingly not amenable to a stay. It followed that no question of irreparable loss could arise where execution was impossible. The court further noted that the status quo had changed because a replacement supervisor had been engaged, and that the applicants had not shown vigilance in prosecuting either the appeal or the arbitration.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed; interim orders staying the second respondent's suspension hearing lifted and set aside

Facts

The applicants, a consortium of engineering consulting firms, were contracted in August 2019 by the Government, represented by the first respondent, to supervise infrastructure development at Kampala Industrial and Business Park, Namanve, for about 8.8 million Euros over six years. By late 2022 a dispute had arisen, each side alleging breach. On the Attorney General's advice the first respondent terminated the contract by 60 days' notice and recommended the applicants' suspension from public procurement to the second respondent. The applicants referred the dispute to arbitration and sought interim injunctive relief in the High Court (Commercial Division) to restrain termination, suspension and retendering pending arbitration. The trial judge dismissed that application 'with costs to abide the outcome of the arbitral proceedings'. The applicants' High Court application for stay was also dismissed, and they then applied to the Court of Appeal for a stay pending their intended appeal. The first respondent had since engaged a replacement supervisor, which the applicants did not rebut.

Issues

1. Whether the High Court order dismissing the application was a negative order incapable of execution and therefore not amenable to a stay of execution.
2. Whether the applicants satisfied the established conditions for the grant of a stay of execution.

Orders

• The Application is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
• The orders issued by this Court staying the proceedings before the 2nd Respondent relating to the suspension hearing of the Applicants pending the disposal of this application are hereby lifted and/or set aside.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Judicature Act s.33
• Judicature Act s.12
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. No. 13-10 r.2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. No. 13-10 r.6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. No. 13-10 r.43(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. No. 13-10 r.53(2)
• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Cap 4 s.6
• PPDA Act, 2003
• PPDA (Contracts) Regulations s.56(4)

Cases cited (6)

• Jomayi Property Consultants Ltd v Andrew Maviiri (Civil Reference No. 174 of 2015)
• Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkundiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
• Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
• Finasi/Roko Construction SPV Ltd and Another v Roko Construction Ltd (Civil Application No. 220 of 2019)
• Florah Ramarungu v DFCU Leasing Co. Ltd (Civil Application No. 11 of 2009)
• Nakato Sarah and Another v James Busonga and Others (Civil Application No. 303 of 2023)

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