[2008] UGSC 27

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT MENGO

CORAM: G. M. OKELLO, JSC

## CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12 OF 2008 (EXPARTE)

#### BETWEEN

G. AFARO:

*<u>....................................*</u>

# $A$ $N$ $D$

<pre>:::::: :::::: RESPONDENT</pre> UGANDA BREWERIES LTD:

(Arising from SCC Application No. 11 of 2008; ASCCA No. 04/2008)

### RULING OF G. M. OKELLO - JSC:

This is an exparte application for an interim order for stay of execution of an order for costs and decree made by the Court of Appeal against the applicant in Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2005, pending the disposal of an interpartes application for stay of execution filed and pending in this court under Civil Application No. 11 of 2008.

The applicant requests that costs of this application abide the result of the pending substantive application.

This application is based on 8 grounds and supported by an affidavit evidence sworn by the applicant on 4^th July, 2008.

'l'his court has inherent power to make such orders as may be neccssary tbr achicving thc cnd ol justicc or to prevcnt abusc ol'thc proccss ol'coun (rule 2(2) of the Rules of this coun).

l'he brief background tacts leading to this application are that thc applicant was employed by the respondent. While in thc coursc ol'his crnployrnent. the applicant was crushed against a wall by the respondent's lbrk lilt. As a result, the applicant suffered serious injuries to his genitals. After what appeared to be amicable settlement, the applicant successfully sued the respondent in the High Court which awarded hirn thc sum ol' 22 million shillings as compensation and legal l-ees.

o

o

Dissatisfied with that decision, the respondent successfully appcaled to thc ('ourt of Appcal. 'l'he courl allowed thc appeal wilh costs.

Feeling undone, the applicant also appealed against that decision to this court vide SCCA No. 04 of 2008. Upon serving the respondent with the papers of that appeal, the latter threatened execution of the dccrec ordcrcd by the Court ol'Appeal. An application for execution with a warrant ol'arrest in execution attached (Annexture AG5) was filed in the Court of Appeal on 02- 06-08.

Applicant applied in this courl vidc Civil Application No. I I of 2008 lirr ^a stay of cxecution pending thc disposal of thc pcnding appeal. While that application was pending, the applicant sought an interim order ol slay in thc lowcr court pending the disposal of the substantive application. '[he lower court rejectcd that request hence this application.

,/

Arguing the applicant's case, Mr. Magemi submitted in substance that failure grant this application would render the applicant's pending appeal nugatory. He stated that this court has conculrent jurisdiction to grant thc interim order. He stated that this application was filed without undue delay and praycd that it be grantcd to preserve the status quo until thc substantivc application is disposed of.

I accept the argument that this court has inherent powers to grant thc interim orclcr. Rulc 2(2) ol the Rules of this court saves the inhercnt powers o[ this courl to rnake such ordcrs as may bc Decessary fbr achicving the cnds ot' justice or to prevent abuse of the process ol this court.

o

|--

a

It is important that when a party pursues his/her right of appeal, thc appcal if successful, should not be rendered nugatory. I am satisticd that thc respondent's thrcat to execute thc lowcr court's order is real. A noticc to show cause why the exccution should not be carried out has becn servcd on the applicant. He is to appear in the lower court for that purposc otr 24-07-0t1. 'l'his interim ordcr is thcrcforc nccessarily to Prcscrvc thc status until the substantive application tttr stay of execution is heard and disposcd ol'.

In lhe result, I altow the application. lt is ordered that thc cxcctltion of'thc ordcr ol' thc Court of Appcat in Clivil Appcal No. 45 ol' 2005. bc staycd pending thc disposal of the substantive application frrr stay of cxecution n<lw pending belbre this court. '[his interim order shall remain in force until 22,09-08. or until the substantivc application No. I I ot2008. now pcnding in this court, is hcard and disposed o[' whichcver comes l'irst. Il'by thc 22"r

September 2008, the said substantive application is not yet disposed of, this matter should be returned to this court for review.

Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the substantive application No. 11 of 2008.

Dated at Mengo this $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{A}$ of $\mathcal{A}$ $\mathcal{A}$ $\mathcal{A}$ $\mathcal{A}$ $\mathcal{A}$ $\mathcal{A}$ $\mathcal{A}$ $\mathcal{A}$ $\mathcal{A}$ $\mathcal{A}$ $\mathcal{A}$ $\mathcal{A}$ $\mathcal{A}$ $\mathcal{A}$ $\mathcal{A}$ $\mathcal{A}$ $\mathcal{A}$ $\mathcal{A}$ 2008.

$\overline{4}$

G. M. OKELLO

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT