Yahaya and 2 Others v Nabunya and 3 Others (Civil Application 89 of 2023)

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.

Holding

Sitting as a single Justice, the Court of Appeal held that a single Justice has jurisdiction to hear and determine a substantive application for a temporary injunction. Applying the conditions for a stay of execution from Shiv Construction and Ssekikubo, the Court found the applicants had demonstrated a prima facie case with a likelihood of success on appeal, that they would suffer irreparable damage and the appeal would be rendered nugatory if evicted despite having paid rent, and that the balance of convenience favoured them as parties in possession running a petrol station. The application was allowed and a stay of execution granted pending determination of Civil Appeal No. 532 of 2022.

Outcome

Application granted; stay of execution issued pending determination of Civil Appeal No. 532 of 2022

Facts

In August 2000, the applicants entered into a 49-year tenancy/lease agreement with the first three respondents over land comprised in Block 123 Plot 1177 East Buganda. They took possession, paid the premium and constructed a petrol station and related developments. The applicants were prevented from registering their lease interest, and the first three respondents allegedly transferred the land to the fourth respondent, who attempted to evict them. The applicants filed High Court Civil Suit No. 26 of 2021 at Mukono seeking a permanent injunction and declarations that the transaction was unlawful and fraudulent. The suit was dismissed for failure to disclose a cause of action; the decree ordered cancellation of the rent agreement and title, payment of rent arrears to the fourth respondent, and costs. The applicants filed a notice of appeal and Civil Appeal No. 532 of 2022. The fourth respondent then demanded rent arrears of UGX 170,000,000 within 14 days, prompting this application for a temporary injunction to restrain execution pending appeal. The respondents did not file any reply and the application was heard ex parte.

Issues

1. Whether a single Justice of the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear and determine a substantive application for a temporary injunction.
2. Whether the applicants adduced sufficient reasons to justify the grant of a stay of execution / temporary injunction pending appeal.

Orders

• An order of stay of execution is granted restraining the respondents, their agents, servants and attorneys from executing or enforcing the judgment and orders of the High Court delivered by Hon. Justice Batema N.D.A on 2 November 2022 until determination of Civil Appeal No. 532 of 2022.
• Costs shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Constitution of Uganda Article 128
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.42(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.43(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.43(2)
• Landlord and Tenant Act 2022 s.29(2)

Cases cited (7)

• Shiv Construction v Endesha Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1992)
• Uganda Revenue Authority v National Social Security Fund (Civil Application No. 43 of 2023)
• Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
• Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkudiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
• Giella v Cassman Brown & Co [1973] EA 358
• American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 504
• Osman Kassim v Century Bottling Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2019)

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