Wakilii

Sewamala v Bembe & 6 Ors (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2014)

High Court · [1993] UGHCCD 6 · 1993 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review or to set aside order of Chief Magistrate granting stay of execution
Decision
Application dismissed; matter to proceed on pending appeal

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 High Court dismissed an application for review of a Chief Magistrate's order granting stay of execution. The court held that under Order 42 rules 2 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a review application must be presented to the judge who made the original order. The application was further defective because the notice of motion failed to state the general grounds as required by Order 48 rule 3, and Order 39 rule 4(4) did not deal with review of orders relating to stay of execution.

Outcome

Application dismissed; matter to proceed on pending appeal

Facts

The applicant Angel Sewamala brought an application by notice of motion dated 26 November 1992, supported by two affidavits, seeking to review or set aside an order made by the Chief Magistrate which had granted a stay of execution. The application was brought before Justice Kato, who had not made the original order sought to be reviewed. The notice of motion did not state the general grounds of the application as required by the Civil Procedure Rules. The application purported to rely on Order 39 rule 4(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Both counsel informed the court that an appeal was pending between the same parties.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court could review an order made by the Chief Magistrate when the judge hearing the application did not make the original order.
  2. Whether the notice of motion complied with Civil Procedure Rules Order 48 rule 3 requiring statement of general grounds.
  3. Whether Order 39 rule 4(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides for review or setting aside of orders made by District Registrars relating to stay of execution.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the respondents.
  • Appeal between the same parties to be fixed for hearing as soon as possible if ready.

Rules and key headnotes

Review of Orders — Proper Forum — Jurisdiction
Under Order 42 rules 2 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, an application for review must be presented to the judge who granted the order or decree which is the subject of the review; a different judge lacks jurisdiction to review another judge's order.
Notice of Motion — Formal Requirements — Statement of Grounds
A notice of motion must comply with Order 48 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules by stating the general grounds of the application; failure to state any ground is a serious omission which renders the application incurably defective.
Review of Orders — Scope of Order 39 Rule 4(4) — Stay of Execution
Order 39 rule 4(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules does not deal with setting aside or review of orders made by District Registrars relating to stay of execution.

Legislation cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sewamala v Bembe & 6 Ors (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2014) [1993] UGHCCD 6 (12 October 1993)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.