Uganda Air Cargo Corporation v Kirunda & Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 174 of 2015)

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 Court of Appeal granted the applicant leave to appeal and extension of time, holding that the intended appeal raised serious questions meriting judicial consideration — notably whether the Attorney General could enter a consent judgment on behalf of a public institution without instructions from its accounting officer under Article 164 of the Constitution. The Court also granted a stay of execution, finding that if the applicant's attached property were sold it would suffer irreparable damage, that there was a serious question to be tried on appeal, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant despite the hardship to the respondents. Costs were ordered to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Outcome

Leave to appeal, extension of time and stay of execution granted pending final disposal of the intended appeal

Facts

The applicant company was sued by the respondents in High Court Civil Suit No. 169 of 2001. The Attorney General, acting as counsel for the applicant, entered into a consent judgment allegedly without authorization from the applicant company, to its detriment. The applicant instructed new counsel and sought to set aside the consent judgment through High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 385 of 2013, which was dismissed by Musota J on 24 September 2014. The applicant filed a further application to set aside that dismissal, which remained pending. Meanwhile the respondents sought to execute. The applicant had obtained a stay of execution in the High Court but on conditions it considered too harsh to comply with, prompting it to approach the Court of Appeal seeking leave to appeal, extension of time and a stay of execution pending appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time and leave to appeal against the decision refusing to set aside the consent judgment.
2. Whether a stay of execution should be granted pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.

Orders

• Leave granted for extension of time to serve the respondent with the Memorandum of Appeal within 21 days from the date of the ruling.
• Stay of execution of the impugned orders and decree of the High Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 308 of 2014 granted until final disposal of the appeal.
• Stay of execution of the Consent Judgment in Civil Suit No. 169 of 2011 granted pending final disposal of the appeal.
• The Registrar directed to fix the hearing of the intended appeal during the next convenient session.
• Cost of application to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I.13-10 r.2
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I.13-10 r.5
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I.13-10 r.6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I.13-10 r.40(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I.13-10 r.43
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I.13-10 r.44
• Constitution of Uganda art.164(2)
• Public Finance and Accountability Act No. 6 of 2003
• Uganda Air Cargo Corporation Act

Cases cited (11)

• Mugo v Wanjiru [1970] EA 481
• Inspectorate of Government v UVETISO Association Ltd (Civil Application No. 409 of 2014)
• Esso Standard Eastern Inc v Income Tax E.A. 127 at 140
• Electoral Commission v Bigirwa Bernadette (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1997)
• Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
• Sango Bay Estates Ltd v Dresdner Bank AG [1971] EA 17
• National Housing & Construction Corporation v Another (Civil Application No. 6 of 2002)
• Wilson v Church (1879) 12 Ch D 454
• National Enterprises Corporation Ltd v Mukisa Foods Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 1998)
• American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
• Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Bitamisi v Rwabuganda (Civil Appeal 16 of 2014)

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