[2008] UGSC 11

[2008] UGSC 11

The Supreme Court accepted that it possesses inherent powers under Rule 2(2) of its Rules to grant interim orders necessary to achieve justice and prevent abuse of process. The applicant demonstrated that the threat of execution of the Court of Appeal's decree was real and imminent, as evidenced by a notice to show cause and a scheduled appearance for execution. The Court found that if execution proceeded before the substantive application for stay was determined, the applicant's right of appeal could be rendered nugatory. Therefore, to preserve the status quo and ensure the appeal remains effective, the interim stay of execution was granted pending disposal of the substantive application...

Citation
[2008] UGSC 11
Parties
Applicant: G. Afaro; Respondent: Uganda Breweries Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
22 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Interim Application for Stay of Execution
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Interim Orders, Workplace Injury, Compensation Awards, Appeal Process
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Employment and Labour Tort Law Stay of Execution Interim Orders Workplace Injury Compensation Awards Appeal Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G. Afaro

Applicant

Uganda Breweries Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Interim Application for Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court should grant an interim order for stay of execution of the Court of Appeal's decree and costs pending determination of the substantive application for stay.
  2. 2 Whether failure to grant the interim stay would render the applicant's pending appeal nugatory.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court accepted that it possesses inherent powers under Rule 2(2) of its Rules to grant interim orders necessary to achieve justice and prevent abuse of process. The applicant demonstrated that the threat of execution of the Court of Appeal's decree was real and imminent, as evidenced by a notice to show cause and a scheduled appearance for execution. The Court found that if execution proceeded before the substantive application for stay was determined, the applicant's right of appeal could be rendered nugatory. Therefore, to preserve the status quo and ensure the appeal remains effective, the interim stay of execution was granted pending disposal of the substantive application...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Execution of the order of the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2005 is stayed pending disposal of the substantive application for stay of execution now pending before the Supreme Court.
  • This interim order shall remain in force until 22-09-08 or until substantive application No. 11 of 2008 is heard and disposed of, whichever comes first.