Wakilii

Uganda Medical & Dental Practitioners Council & Anor v Ssentongo (Miscellaneous Application No. 2656 of 2016)

High Court · [2017] UGHCEBD 18 · 2017 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal from orders of mandamus in Miscellaneous Cause 128 of 2016
Decision
Application for stay of execution pending appeal dismissed

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

Held that stay of execution was not justified where applicants failed to demonstrate substantial loss or irreparable damage beyond ordinary consequences of losing a case, provided no memorandum of appeal to assess likelihood of success, and disobeyed existing court orders directing registration of a qualified medical practitioner. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution pending appeal dismissed

Facts

The respondent, a qualified medical doctor, completed his internship at Mbarara University from August 2014 to August 2015 and was certified as having completed internship in 2015. The applicants refused to register him as a medical practitioner, claiming he failed to produce a form indicating completion of internship in Pediatrics and Child Health. In Miscellaneous Cause 128 of 2016, the court issued orders of mandamus on 14 October 2016 directing the applicants to fully register the respondent and awarded him general damages of UGX 5,000,000 with interest at 12% per annum plus costs. The applicants filed a notice of appeal on 27 October 2016 and applied for stay of execution on 29 November 2016 after the respondent commenced execution proceedings by applying for notice to show cause.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution pending appeal should be granted.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent to be paid by the first applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Principles for Grant — Requirement to Show Substantial Loss
In applications for stay of execution, it is not sufficient to merely repeat the words of the code and state that substantial loss will result; the applicant must specify the kind of loss, give details, and satisfy the court's conscience that such loss will really ensue. The words substantial loss must mean something in addition to or different from the ordinary loss to which every judgment debtor is necessarily subjected when they lose a case and are deprived of property as a consequence.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success — Necessity of Memorandum of Appeal
Without a memorandum of appeal filed, the court is not in a position to determine whether an appeal has a high likelihood of success, even where the applicant claims the appeal raises serious points of law.
Civil Procedure — Execution — Pending Appeal Not a Bar to Enforcement
Pending of an appeal is not a bar to a successful party's right to enforce a decree obtained even by execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Guiding Principles — Individual Circumstances
In applications for stay of execution, the guiding principles depend on the individual circumstances and merit of each case. The individual circumstances of each case determine whether the case falls within the scope and parameters of any laid down principles.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (9)

  • Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein and 2 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2008)
  • Alcon International Ltd vs. Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates
  • Kyambogo University v Ndiege [2013] UGCA 8
  • Commissioner of Customs Uganda Revenue Authority v Kirenga [2015] UGCA 3
  • Malinga Noah & 2 Others v Akol Henry (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 203 of 2015)
  • David Wesley v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 61 of 2014)
  • East African Development Bank v Blueline Enterprise Ltd [2006] 2 EA 51 (Court of Appeal of Tanzania)
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Cogecot Cotton Co. SA [1995-98] EA 312
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Tembo Steel Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 521 of 2007)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Medical & Dental Practitioners Council & Anor v Ssentongo (Miscellaneous Application No. 2656 of 2016) [2017] UGHCEBD 18 (16 May 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.