Wakilii

Tekereza and Others v Kyaligonza and Others (Miscellaneous Application 28 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 312 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review arising from stay of execution orders granted pending appeal
Decision
Application for review dismissed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction

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 to review a stay of execution order where the decree holders sought to set aside the stay on grounds that the respondents had not filed a memorandum of appeal within time. The court held that once a memorandum of appeal has been filed in the Court of Appeal, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to determine whether the appeal was properly instituted or filed within time, as the Court of Appeal is the proper forum for such matters.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction

Facts

The applicants were successful decree holders in Civil Suit No. 15 of 2019. The respondents filed a notice of appeal in December 2022 and obtained a stay of execution pending appeal via Miscellaneous Application No. 166 of 2022, granted on 14 March 2023. The certified record was ready on 23 February 2023, and the respondents filed their memorandum of appeal in the Court of Appeal on 25 May 2023. The applicants then brought this review application, arguing that the respondents had failed to file the memorandum of appeal within the required timelines, effectively meaning there was no appeal, and therefore the stay of execution should be set aside so they could enjoy the fruits of their decree.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has sufficient grounds for review of the stay of execution order.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Orders — Jurisdiction — Concurrent Jurisdiction
Where an appeal has been lodged in the Court of Appeal by filing a memorandum of appeal, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to review a stay of execution order on the ground that the appeal was not properly or timely filed, as the Court of Appeal is the proper forum to determine the propriety and timeliness of appeals before it.
Civil Procedure — Review of Orders — Sufficient Reason — Scope
Under Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, sufficient reason for review means a reason sufficient on grounds analogous to those specified in the rule, namely manifest error on the face of the record or discovery of new and important evidence.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Review — Limits on High Court Powers
The High Court has no power to decide whether an appeal before the Court of Appeal was properly filed within time, and therefore cannot review a stay of execution order on that basis under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (1)

  • FX Mubuuke v UEB (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tekereza_and_Others_v_Kyaligonza_and_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_28_of_2023)_[2023]_UGHCLD_312_(13_October_2023)
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.