The Administrator General Through the Lawful Attorney Kyomuhendo Jolly Christine v NSSF & Ors [2009] UGSC 11

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.

Holding

The single judge declined to grant the interim order to stay execution. The application abated because the very execution sought to be stayed (eviction of the suit property) had already been carried out by the respondents. In any event, there was no proper notice of appeal upon which the application could be based: a notice of appeal grounding a stay under Rule 6(2)(b) must relate to the decision on the merits of the subject matter, whereas the applicant's intended appeal was against the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant a stay. The application was therefore muddled and could not succeed.

Outcome

Interim order for stay of execution declined; the application abated because eviction had already been carried out.

Facts

Patrick Kaija (deceased), an employee of the first respondent, obtained a loan from it and mortgaged his property at Plot 111, Makerere Kiyindi to secure it. On cessation of his employment he was required to repay the loan in full but could not. The first respondent sued by originating summons (Civil Suit No. 10 of 2005) and a consent judgment was entered on 15 May 2006, under which default in any payment made the whole balance payable, to be realised by sale of the property without recourse to court. Following default, the second respondent (court bailiff) sold the property to Nakanjako Margaret Njeri, who resold it to the third respondent, who became the registered proprietor. The applicant challenged the sale and pursued proceedings in the High Court and Court of Appeal, the latter declining to grant a stay. The applicant lodged a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court and sought an interim stay. While the stay application was pending and fixed for hearing, the third respondent caused the occupants to be evicted.

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 stay had been overtaken and could not be granted because the execution (eviction) had already been carried out.
3. Whether a single judge of the Supreme Court is empowered to hear and grant an interim order for stay of execution.

Orders

• Application for an interim order of stay of execution 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 Mutabazi and 3 Others (Civil Application No. 21 of 2001)
• W. Mukiibi v J. Semusambwa (Civil Application No. 9 of 2003)
• Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Atabya Agencies Ltd (Civil Application No. 31 of 2004)

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