Ssemakula v Attorney General & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No.342 of 2015)

Observed later treatment

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

The Court declined to grant a stay of execution of the Law Council Disciplinary Committee's orders against the applicant advocate. It held that the applicant had not established that his pending constitutional petition had a great likelihood of success. The potential loss—payment of an ascertained sum plus costs and a temporary suspension from legal practice—was not irreparable because it could be compensated in money and the suspension would soon lapse. The petition would not be rendered nugatory, as the Constitutional Court could still hear it. Costs were ordered to abide the result of the petition.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution refused; orders of the Disciplinary Committee not stayed

Facts

The applicant, an advocate, represented former workers of Uganda Dairy Corporation in High Court civil suits to recover terminal benefits and milk allowances. Dissatisfied workers filed professional misconduct complaints with the Law Council. After a hearing, the Disciplinary Committee suspended the applicant from legal practice for two years and ordered him to refund the complainants and pay costs. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed as time-barred, and a subsequent application for judicial review failed. He then filed Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 2014 alleging infringement of his fundamental rights and challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Advocates Act. Pending that petition, he applied for a stay of execution of the Disciplinary Committee's orders, contending execution would render the petition nugatory and cause hardship given the substantial sums involved. He alleged Uganda Revenue Authority had seized part of the money via an agency notice but did not produce clear evidence of the amount actually deducted.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant's pending constitutional petition raised a prima facie case with a likelihood of success.
2. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable loss or the petition would be rendered nugatory if a stay of execution was refused.
3. Whether the conditions for the grant of a stay of execution were satisfied.

Orders

• Application for stay of execution declined.
• Costs of the application to abide the result of the petition.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.6(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.40
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.41(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.42
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Act s.34
• Judicature Act s.33
• Advocates Act Cap 267

Cases cited (7)

• National Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 1998)
• Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omoto Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
• Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
• Akankwasa Damian v Uganda (Constitutional Application Nos. 7 and 9 of 2011)
• Vicent L'Okucha Emoru v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 1998)
• City Council of Kampala v Donozio Musisi Sekyaya (Civil Application No. 3 of 2000)
• Teddy Seezi Cheye v Enos Tumusiime (Civil Application No. 21 of 1996)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Ssemakula v Law Council Disciplinary Committee and Another (Civil Appeal 169 of 2016)

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