Wakilii

Tullow Uganda Ltd & Anor v Wabyona (Miscellaneous Application No. 443 of 2017)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 69 · 2017 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of proceedings pending appeal from High Court interlocutory ruling dismissing preliminary objection on locus standi
Decision
Proceedings stayed pending appeal to the Court of Appeal

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 held that it has inherent jurisdiction to grant a stay of its own proceedings pending appeal, even though no specific rule confers such power. The court granted the stay on the basis that the appeal raises an important point of law concerning whether a member of the public has locus standi to challenge a consent judgment entered between the Uganda Revenue Authority and a taxpayer. The preliminary issue of locus standi is a controlling question of law which, if resolved in favour of the applicants on appeal, would dispose of the entire review application, making it appropriate to stay proceedings pending the Court of Appeal's determination.

Outcome

Proceedings stayed pending appeal to the Court of Appeal

Facts

The applicants (Tullow Uganda Ltd and Tullow Uganda Operations Pty Ltd) entered into a consent judgment with the Uganda Revenue Authority in 2015. In February 2017, the respondent (Jackson Wabyona) filed an application to review and set aside that consent judgment. The applicants filed a preliminary objection under Order 6 rule 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking to strike out the review application on the ground that the respondent lacked locus standi. On 12 May 2017, the High Court delivered a ruling dismissing the preliminary objection, holding that although the respondent was not a person aggrieved under Order 46 rule 1, the application was in substance public interest litigation and the respondent had sufficient interest to proceed. On 15 May 2017, the applicants filed a notice of appeal against the entire ruling and applied for stay of all proceedings pending the determination of the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant an order of stay of proceedings pending appeal to the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether the application for stay of proceedings should be granted pending the determination of the appeal from the interlocutory ruling on locus standi.
  3. Whether the intended appeal raises controlling questions of law which, if resolved in favour of the applicants, would dispose of the underlying review application.
  4. Whether continuing with the review proceedings would render the intended appeal nugatory.

Orders

  • Application for stay of proceedings granted.
  • All proceedings in Miscellaneous Application No. 137 of 2017 and applications arising therefrom stayed pending the determination of the appeal.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Proceedings — High Court Jurisdiction — Inherent Powers
The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to grant a stay of its own proceedings pending appeal to the Court of Appeal, notwithstanding the absence of a specific rule conferring such power, where it is necessary to prevent the appeal from being rendered nugatory or to serve the interests of justice.
Stay of Proceedings — Controlling Question of Law — Locus Standi
Where an interlocutory appeal raises a controlling question of law (such as whether the applicant has locus standi to bring the underlying application) which, if resolved in favour of the appellant, would dispose of the entire matter, the court may exercise its discretion to stay proceedings pending determination of that appeal to avoid wasting judicial resources.
Locus Standi — Preliminary Point of Law — Procedure
Locus standi is a preliminary point of law which ought to be determined before the matter proceeds, as it concerns whether the applicant has the right to bring the application at all. The issue may be raised from the pleadings alone and is not about procedure, but about the substantive right of the litigant to be heard.
Order 6 Rule 30 — Automatic Right of Appeal — Preliminary Objections
All orders made under Order 6 rule 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules (striking out pleadings on the ground that they disclose no reasonable cause of action or are frivolous or vexatious) are appealable as of right, regardless of whether the order was made on a formal application or otherwise.
Public Interest Litigation — Locus Standi — Agreements by Public Authorities
A member of the public can, on a point of law, challenge an agreement entered into by the Uganda Revenue Authority which results in a consent judgment, on the ground that the agreement is contrary to law, because the Uganda Revenue Authority is a public authority required to act within the law.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (18)

  • James Rwanyarare and 5 Others v Peter Walubiri and 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 646 of 2005)
  • Hassan Basajja and 8 Others v Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 215 of 2014)
  • Hajj Ali Cheboi v Kiroko Mesulamu (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Bivac International SA (Bureau Viritas) [2006] 1 EA 26
  • The Returning Officer of Kampala v Catherine Naava Nabagesera (Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1997)
  • DFCU Ltd v Begmohamed Ltd (Civil Application No. 65 of 2005)
  • Commodity Export International & Another v MKM Trading Company Ltd and Another (Civil Application No. 96 of 2005)
  • Sanyu Lwanga Musoke v Sam Galiwango (Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1995)
  • J. Hannington Wasswa Semukulu & Co. Ltd v Maria Ochola & 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1990)
  • Akankwasa Damian v Uganda (Constitutional Application No. 070 of 2011)
  • Silverstein vs. Chesoni
  • Engineer Yaswant Sidpra v Sam Odaka and 4 Others (Civil Suit No. 365 of 2007)
  • R v London Sessions Appeal Committee Westminster City Council [1951] 1 All ER
  • Ladak Abdulla Mohammed Hussein v Griffiths Isingoma Kakiiza and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1995)
  • National Housing and Construction Corporation v Kampala District Land Board and the Chemical Distributors Ltd (Civil Application No. 6 of 2002)
  • Mugenyi and Company Advocates v National Insurance Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1984)
  • Francis Mansio Nuwa v Nuwa Walakira (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9 of 1990)
  • Saggu v Roadmaster Cycles (U) Ltd [2002] 1 EA 258

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tullow Uganda Ltd & Anor v Wabyona (Miscellaneous Application No. 443 of 2017) [2017] UGCommC 69 (13 June 2017)
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.