The Administrator General through the lawful attorney Kyomuhendo Jolly Christine v National Social Security Fund & 2 Others (Civil Application 2 of 2009)

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 single judge declined to grant an interim order staying execution. An application for stay under Rule 6(2)(b) must rest on a notice of appeal relating to the decision on the merits (the subject matter of the litigation), but here the intended appeal was against the Court of Appeal's refusal of a stay, so there was no proper notice of appeal to support the application. In any event the application abated because the eviction had already been carried out. The court criticised the muddled pleadings and the conduct of counsel for the 3rd respondent in effecting eviction after service of a hearing notice, and made no order as to costs.

Outcome

Interim order of stay of execution refused; the application abated as the eviction had already been carried out.

Facts

Patrick Kaijo, an employee of the National Social Security Fund, owned the suit property (Plot 111, Makerere Kivulu) and mortgaged it to the Fund to secure a loan. His employment ceased, he was required to repay the loan in full, defaulted, and died. By a consent judgment of 15 May 2006 in High Court Civil Suit No. 10 of 2005 it was ordered that on default the whole balance would become payable in a lump sum, to be realised by sale of the property without recourse to court. The court bailiff (2nd respondent) sold the property to Nakanjako Margaret Njeri, who resold it to the 3rd respondent, Fulgence Mungereza, who became registered proprietor. The Administrator General challenged the sale; an appeal was pending in the Court of Appeal, which on 26 February 2009 refused a stay of execution. The applicant then filed this application for stay in the Supreme Court. While the application was pending, eviction of the occupants was carried out on 16 March 2009 and possession handed to the 3rd respondent.

Issues

1. Whether there was a proper notice of appeal capable of grounding an application for stay of execution under Rule 6(2)(b).
2. Whether the application for an interim order of stay had abated because the eviction (execution) had already been carried out.
3. Whether a single judge of the Supreme Court may hear an application for stay of execution and grant an interim order.

Orders

• The application for an interim order of stay of execution is declined.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Rules of the Supreme Court r.6(2)(b)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.42
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.72
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.2(2)

Cases cited (3)

• Horizon Coaches Ltd v Francis Mulobozi and 3 Others (Civil Application No. 21 of 2001)
• W. Mukiibi v J. Semusombwo (Civil Application No. 9 of 2003)
• Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Atabya Agencies Ltd (Civil Application No. 31 of 2004)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Crane Bank Ltd & Anor v Belex Tours & Travel Ltd (Misc. Applics. No. 343 & 345 of 2013)
• The Administrator General Through the Lawful Attorney Kyomuhendo Jolly Christine v NSSF & Ors [2009] UGSC 11

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