[2015] UGSC 10

[2015] UGSC 10

The Supreme Court found that the applicant had met all criteria for the grant of an interim order of stay of execution: a Notice of Appeal was properly lodged and served, a substantive application for stay of execution was pending, there was ample evidence of a serious and imminent threat of execution through applications for partial execution and warrants for eviction, and the application was filed promptly without undue delay. Objections raised by the respondents regarding locus and right of appeal were deemed matters for the substantive application and not for determination at the interim stage. The court emphasized that the purpose of an interim order is to preserve the status quo and...

Citation
[2015] UGSC 10
Parties
Applicant: Francis Drake Lubega; Respondent: Attorney General; Respondent: The Commissioner Land Registration; Respondent: Horizon Coaches
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
22 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Interim Stay of Execution Ruling
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
Arach-Amoko, JSC, Katureebe, CJ, Mwangusya, JSC, Tumwesigye, JSC, Mwondha, JSC
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Interim Orders, Right of Appeal, Contempt of Court, Status Quo Preservation, Property Disputes
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Land and Property Stay of Execution Interim Orders Right of Appeal Contempt of Court Status Quo Preservation +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Drake Lubega

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

The Commissioner Land Registration

Respondent

Horizon Coaches

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Interim Stay of Execution Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the criteria for grant of an interim order of stay of execution pending determination of the substantive application.
  2. 2 Whether there is a serious and imminent threat of execution of the Constitutional Court orders.
  3. 3 Whether the application was filed without undue delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that the applicant had met all criteria for the grant of an interim order of stay of execution: a Notice of Appeal was properly lodged and served, a substantive application for stay of execution was pending, there was ample evidence of a serious and imminent threat of execution through applications for partial execution and warrants for eviction, and the application was filed promptly without undue delay. Objections raised by the respondents regarding locus and right of appeal were deemed matters for the substantive application and not for determination at the interim stage. The court emphasized that the purpose of an interim order is to preserve the status quo and...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • An interim order staying execution of the orders of the Constitutional Court in Consolidated Misc. Application Nos. 31 and 32 delivered on 29th April 2015 is issued until final determination of the substantive application for stay of execution or further orders of this Court.
  • Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the substantive application for stay of execution.