[1997] UGCA 8

[1997] UGCA 8

The Court held that an appeal does not lie as of right against an interim order staying execution of a decree. Such orders are not included in the list of orders appealable as of right under Order 40(1)(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. For orders not covered, leave to appeal must be sought from the trial court or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1997] UGCA 8
Parties
Applicant: Incafex Ltd; Respondent: James Kabatereine
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Misc Application No. 16 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application to Strike Out Appeal
Outcome
application allowed; appeal struck out as incompetent
Legal Topics
Competency of Appeal, Interim Orders, Leave to Appeal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Competency of Appeal Interim Orders Leave to Appeal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Incafex Ltd

Applicant

James Kabatereine

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Application to Strike Out Appeal

  1. 1 Whether an appeal lies against an interim order of stay of execution.
  2. 2 Whether leave of court is required to appeal against such an order.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's appeal was competent in law.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that an appeal does not lie as of right against an interim order staying execution of a decree. Such orders are not included in the list of orders appealable as of right under Order 40(1)(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. For orders not covered, leave to appeal must be sought from the trial court or the appellate court, and the application for leave must be made by motion on notice. The respondent did not seek or obtain leave before filing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was incompetent and was struck out. The respondent was ordered to bear the costs of the application.

Court Disposition

application allowed; appeal struck out as incompetent

Orders

  • The respondent's appeal is struck out as incompetent.
  • The respondent shall bear the applicant's costs of the application.