Sam Sewanyana and Another v Nicholas Were (Civil Reference No. 79 of 2013)
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
On a reference from the Registrar's grant of interim orders in a company management dispute, the single Justice of Appeal held that there was no status quo to preserve. The applicants were already directors appointed at a 2006 meeting and the respondent's legal right as director had already been determined; a consent order before the High Court had likewise intended to preserve the status quo pending appeal. The Registrar therefore misdirected himself on the facts and granted relief that was undeserved. The reference was allowed and the Registrar's order set aside, with the substantive application and appeal directed to be fixed for hearing.
Outcome
Reference allowed; Registrar's interim order set aside and substantive matters directed to be fixed for hearing
Facts
The respondent, formerly Chairman and Director of Goodman Agencies, brought a company cause challenging his own removal and seeking removal of directors. Justice Kibuka Musoke dismissed that application, finding the respondent's removal accorded with the company's Articles. His application for stay of execution was dismissed by Justice Kabito. He then sought leave to appeal and filed an application before the Registrar of the Court of Appeal for an interim order of stay and injunctions restraining registration of the High Court judgment and restraining the appellants from managing Goodman Agencies Ltd. The Registrar granted the application with conditions, including maintenance of the status quo. The applicants, who were directors appointed at a meeting on 18 September 2006 by directors controlling 75% of shares, were dissatisfied and brought a reference contending the Registrar's orders overturned the decisions of two judges.
Issues
- Whether the Registrar properly granted an interim injunction to maintain the status quo pending hearing of the substantive application.
- Whether there was a status quo capable of being preserved by an interim order.
Orders
- The reference is allowed and the order of the Registrar is set aside.
- Costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.
- The Registrar is directed to fix the substantive application and appeal for hearing as soon as possible, preferably together on the same day.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
- Judicature Act s.41
- Judicature Act Cap 13 s.12
- Court of Appeal Rules rule 5
- Court of Appeal Rules rule 6(2)(b)
- Court of Appeal Rules rule 55
- Court of Appeal (Judicial Powers of Registrars) Practice Direction No. 1 of 2004
Cases cited (6)
- Butera Edward v Mutalemwa Godfrey (Civil Reference No. 70 of 2013)
- Burundi Tobacco Co. S.A.R.L and Leaf Tobacco & Commodity (U) Ltd v British American Tobacco (U) (Civil Reference No. 22 of 2010)
- Francis Mansi Micah v. Nuwa Walakira s.c.c Application No. I of 1990
- Mandela Auto Spares v Marketing Information Systems Ltd (Court of Appeal Reference No. 74 of 2008)
- wilson Mulibi v. James Semusambwa SupremenCivil Application No.g of 2003
- Souna Cosmetics Ltd v The Commissioner Customs URA & Another (Misc. Application No. 424 of 2011)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.