Wakilii

The Uganda Super League Ltd v Federation of Uganda Football Associations (FUFA) Ltd (Civil Applic. No 67 of 2015)

Court of Appeal · [2015] UGCA 39 · 2015 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal for an interim order of stay of execution of a High Court ruling, pending arbitration and a substantive application for stay
Decision
Application for interim order of stay dismissed with costs to the respondent

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

A single Justice of the Court of Appeal dismissed an application for an interim order of stay of a High Court ruling that had declined interim measures of protection pending arbitration. The Court held that an interim stay is not granted as a matter of course and requires compelling reasons to prevent a defeat of justice. Because the football broadcasting agreement had already been terminated and replaced with a new arrangement involving Azam TV (not a party to the dispute), granting a stay would reverse the existing status quo and cause inconvenience to numerous stakeholders. As the applicant could be compensated in damages, its loss was not irreparable. The balance of convenience favoured refusing the order.

Outcome

Application for interim order of stay dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant and the respondent, both involved in administering football in Uganda, executed a written agreement on 14 March 2014 for a term of two and a half years. The applicant was to provide support, funding and commercial broadcasting of football, while the respondent was to run the day-to-day business of the super league and not introduce competing parties. On 30 January 2015 the respondent terminated the agreement, alleging the applicant had failed to fulfil its obligations. The applicant rejected the termination and referred the dispute to arbitration. The respondent and 16 clubs then contracted with Azam TV, a Tanzanian Pay TV, granting it broadcasting rights for three and a half years, and the league was rebranded the Azam Premier League. The applicant sought interim measures of protection in the High Court (Misc. Cause No. 019 of 2015), which were dismissed on 18 March 2015. The applicant lodged a Notice of Appeal and applied to the Court of Appeal for an interim order of stay pending the substantive application and arbitration.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established compelling grounds for an interim order of stay of execution pending the substantive application and arbitral proceedings.
  2. Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting an interim order that would reverse the status quo existing after termination of the agreement.

Orders

  • Application for interim order of stay dismissed.
  • Costs of the dismissed application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interim Order of Stay — Conditions for Grant
An interim order of stay is not granted as a matter of course; the applicant must show a real, imminent and serious threat of execution and that a stay is necessary to secure justice pending hearing of the substantive application, supported by compelling reasons geared towards preventing a defeat of justice.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Preservation of Status Quo
A court will decline an interim order of stay where granting it would reverse the existing status quo rather than preserve it, particularly where the act sought to be restrained has already been performed and third parties not party to the dispute have acquired rights under a new arrangement.
Civil Procedure — Interim Relief — Adequacy of Damages and Irreparable Harm
Where an applicant can be adequately compensated in general and special damages should it succeed in proving unlawful termination of a contract, the loss is not irreparable and the balance of convenience may weigh against granting interim relief.
Civil Procedure — Balance of Convenience — Third-Party and Public Interest
In assessing the balance of convenience for interim relief, the court may weigh the inconvenience, loss and suffering that would be caused to non-parties and the wider public against the harm to the applicant, refusing relief where granting it causes greater inconvenience overall.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.42(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.43
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.44
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap.4 s.6
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Arbitration Rules r.13

Cases cited (4)

  • Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussain and Others (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
  • Sembule Steel Mills Limited v Uganda Baati Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 128 of 2011)
  • Somali Democratic Republic v Anoop S. Sunderlal Treon (Civil Application No. 11 of 1988)
  • Horizon Coaches Ltd v Francis Mutabazi and Others (Civil Application No. 21 of 2001)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The Uganda Super League Ltd Vs Federation of Uganda Football Associations (FUFA) Ltd (Civil Applic. No 67 of 2015) [2015] UGCA 39 (10 April 2015)
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.