Wakilii

Uganda Muslim Supreme Council v Babirye and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 309 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 362 · 2023 Matter Remitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review arising from Company Cause No. 002 of 2023, heard by Acting Principal Judge
Decision
Application referred back to original judge; execution of General Assembly resolutions stayed pending review

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 under Order 46 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, an application for review must ordinarily be heard by the judge who made the order, and absence on annual leave does not constitute 'other cause' justifying hearing by another judge. However, the court retained jurisdiction under section 64(b) of the Civil Procedure Act to make interlocutory orders. The application was referred back to the original judge, and execution of the General Assembly resolutions was stayed pending determination of the review.

Outcome

Application referred back to original judge; execution of General Assembly resolutions stayed pending review

Facts

The Uganda Muslim Supreme Council applied for review of a judgment delivered on 7th December 2023 in Company Cause No. 002 of 2023. The application sought to quash proceedings and resolutions passed at the General Assembly on 16th and 17th December 2023 at Ggangu Muslim Primary School. An exparte application (MA 306 of 2023) was heard on 18th December 2023, and an interim order was issued preventing execution until 22nd December 2023. The application for review was placed before the Acting Principal Judge when the original judge was on annual leave. The respondents, residents of Jinja, were served on 20th December 2023 and indicated intention to file a reply. Counsel for the respondents challenged the jurisdiction of the Acting Principal Judge to hear the review application.

Issues

  1. Whether the Acting Principal Judge had jurisdiction to hear an application for review under Order 46 CPR when the judge who made the orders sought for review was on annual leave.
  2. Whether the court could make interlocutory orders under section 64(b) of the Civil Procedure Act pending determination of the review application.
  3. Whether the General Assembly resolutions passed on 16th and 17th December 2023 should be suspended pending hearing of the review application.

Orders

  • MA No. 309 of 2023, together with MA No. 306 of 2023 and MA No. 307 of 2023, referred back to the judge who made the orders sought for review.
  • Further execution and implementation of the resolutions of the General Assembly made on 16th and 17th December 2023 in Company Cause No. 002 of 2023 suspended pending hearing and determination of the application by the same judge who made the orders.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of MA No. 309 of 2023.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review Applications — Jurisdiction — Which Judge Hears Review
Under Order 46 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, an application for review must be made to the judge who made the order sought to be reviewed. Order 46 rule 4 provides exceptions where the judge is absent or precluded by other cause for six months, but annual leave does not constitute 'other cause' within the spirit of that provision.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Jurisdiction — Application of General Provisions
Where there is a specific statutory provision dealing with a matter, a general law or inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked. Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act cannot operate independently of Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked where there is an express statutory provision.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Orders — Section 64(b) Civil Procedure Act
Although a court may lack jurisdiction to hear a review application under Order 46 rules 2 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, it is not barred from proceeding under section 64(b) of the Civil Procedure Act to make interlocutory orders as may appear to be just and convenient pending determination of the matter by the proper court.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (3)

  • Attorney General & Anor v James Mark Kannoga (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2004)
  • NSSF v ALCON International Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2009)
  • Oluka Meria v Changa Moses (High Court Civil Appeal No. 0090 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Muslim Supreme Council v Babirye and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 309 of 2023) [2023] UGHCCD 362 (22 December 2023)
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.