Uganda Revenue Authority v Nsubuga & Anor [2019] UGSC 15
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.
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
On a single-justice application, the Supreme Court held that the conditions for an interim order of stay under rules 2(2) and 6(2)(a) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules were satisfied: a notice of appeal had been lodged, a substantive application for stay was pending, and there was a serious threat of execution because the High Court Anti-Corruption Division had commenced the retrial and fixed it for hearing. A properly lodged notice of appeal suffices to found such an application; a memorandum of appeal is unnecessary and questions of the appeal's competence are reserved to the appeal hearing. Allowing the retrial to proceed would render the intended appeal nugatory. The interim stay was accordingly granted.
Outcome
Interim order granted staying the retrial proceedings pending determination of the main application for stay of execution
Facts
The respondents were charged before the Anti-Corruption Division with computer misuse and customs-related offences, tried in the High Court, convicted and sentenced. On their appeal against conviction and sentence, the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial on the ground that the respondents had not taken plea to the amended indictment. The applicant, Uganda Revenue Authority, was dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal's order and lodged a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court on 7 November 2018, followed by a main application for stay of proceedings on 3 December 2018, both pending fixing and hearing. Meanwhile the High Court Anti-Corruption Division commenced the retrial, took fresh plea, granted the respondents bail and scheduled the hearing for 1 March 2019. A ruling of that court indicated the trial would proceed unless arrested by a Supreme Court order. The applicant therefore sought an interim order to stay the retrial pending determination of its main stay application.
Issues
- Whether an interim order staying the criminal retrial should be granted pending determination of the applicant's main application for stay of proceedings.
- Whether an application for stay is competent where a notice of appeal has been lodged but no substantive appeal or memorandum of appeal has been filed.
Orders
- Application allowed.
- An interim order is granted staying the proceedings in Criminal case HCT-00-ACD-SC-0084/12 at the Anti-Corruption Division of the High Court pending the determination of the applicant's main Application No. 15 of 2018.
- The costs of this Application shall abide the outcome of the substantive Application for stay of execution.
- The Registrar is directed to fix the main Application for stay for hearing at the earliest opportunity.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (11)
- Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.2(2)
- Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.6(2)(a)
- Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.42
- Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.56
- Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.57
- Computer Misuse Act 2011 s.15(1)
- Computer Misuse Act 2011 s.20
- Computer Misuse Act 2011 s.19
- Computer Misuse Act 2011 s.12(2)
- Computer Misuse Act 2011 s.12(3)
- East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.19(1)(a)
Cases cited (5)
- Francis Drake Lubega v Attorney General and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2015)
- Yakobo M.N Senkungu and 5 Others v Crescensio Mukasa (Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 2013)
- Hon. Theodore Ssekikuubo and 4 Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 4 of 2014)
- Guliano Gargio v Calaudio Casadio (Civil Application No. 3 of 2013)
- Hwan Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2008)
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.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.