[2001] UGCA 65

[2001] UGCA 65

The application for stay of execution was found to be incompetent because the notice of appeal lodged by the applicant related to a different decision (the High Court's ruling on 19/9/2001 rejecting an earlier application for stay) and not to the ex parte judgment delivered on 13/2/2001, which was the subject of the present application. Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules requires that a notice of appeal be filed in respect of the judgment sought to be stayed. Since this procedural requirement was not satisfied, the court held that it had no basis to entertain the application for stay of execution. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Citation
[2001] UGCA 65
Parties
Applicant: Michael Kibirango; Respondent: Shell (U) Ltd.
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
16 November 2001
Case Number
Civil Application No. 75 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
Mukasa-Kikonyogo, DCJ, kato ,JA, Mpagi-Bahigeine, JA
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Notice of Appeal Requirement, Ex Parte Judgment, Procedural Incompetence
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Notice of Appeal Requirement Ex Parte Judgment Procedural Incompetence

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Kibirango

Applicant

Shell (U) Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for stay of execution was properly lodged under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal.
  2. 2 Whether a valid notice of appeal had been filed in respect of the judgment sought to be stayed.
  3. 3 Whether the application was competent in light of the procedural requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for stay of execution was found to be incompetent because the notice of appeal lodged by the applicant related to a different decision (the High Court's ruling on 19/9/2001 rejecting an earlier application for stay) and not to the ex parte judgment delivered on 13/2/2001, which was the subject of the present application. Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules requires that a notice of appeal be filed in respect of the judgment sought to be stayed. Since this procedural requirement was not satisfied, the court held that it had no basis to entertain the application for stay of execution. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded to the respondent.