[2014] UGHCCD 80
The application for stay of execution is incompetent because there is no valid appeal pending; leave to appeal against the revisional order was neither sought nor obtained as required by law. The provisions cited by the applicant, specifically Order 48 r. 1 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, are irrelevant to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] UGHCCD 80
- Parties
- Applicant: Munobwa Mohamed; Respondent: Uganda Muslim Supreme Council
- Court
- HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Misc. Application No. 221 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- application_struck_out
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Leave to Appeal, Revision Orders, Competence of Application
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Munobwa Mohamed
Applicant
Uganda Muslim Supreme Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for stay of execution is competent in the absence of a valid appeal.
- 2 Whether leave to appeal was required and obtained before filing the application for stay.
- 3 Whether the cited provisions of law are applicable to the present application.
Ratio Decidendi
The application for stay of execution is incompetent because there is no valid appeal pending; leave to appeal against the revisional order was neither sought nor obtained as required by law. The provisions cited by the applicant, specifically Order 48 r. 1 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, are irrelevant to the present matter since they pertain to District Registries, which does not apply to this Court. Without leave to appeal, there can be no application for stay of execution pending a non-existent appeal. The application is therefore struck out, and the orders made on revision are to be enforced.
Court Disposition
application_struck_out
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is struck out as incompetent.
- Costs are awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
**THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT JINJA**
**MISC. APPLICATION NO. 221 OF 2011**
ARISING FROM REVISION CAUSE NO. 001 OF 2006
ARISING FROM KALIRO CIVIL SUIT NO. 033 OF 2002
**MUNOBWA MOHAMED :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT**
**VERSUS**
**UGANDA MOSLIM SUPREME COUNCIL ::: RESPONDENT**
**BEFORE: THE HON. MR. JUSTICE GODFREY NAMUNDI**
**RULING/ORDER**
This application was filed under Section 33 of the Judicature Act, Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, order 48 r. 1 & 3 and Order 52 r. 1, 2, and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
It seeks orders for stay of execution of the Order/Decree arising from Civil Revision 1/2006, pending the determination of a Civil Appeal in respect of the said Orders.
The Order in Revision was delivered by Hon. Lady Justice Irene MulyagonjaKakooza on 26/8/2010, dismissing an application for Revision of the Orders of the lower Court in Civil suit 33/2002 held at Kaliro Court.
The Applicants then filed a Notice of Appeal in this Court on 9/9/2010 and according to the Notice of Motion and the affidavit in support thereof, applied for a record of proceedings to enable the Applicants file the appeal in the Court of Appeal.
This application has not been heard since then with the record filled with applications for adjournment for one reason or another. I have counted over 10 adjournments since the application was filed and there is no sufficient justification for the said adjournments.
I have also looked at the provisions of law regarding the filing of Appeals against Revisional Orders under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act.
First I have failed to see the relevance of Order 48 r. 1 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules which is quoted as one of those under which the application is brought. That provision/Order is in respect of District Registries. This Court is not a District Registry so citing Order 48 r. 1 & 3 is irrelevant to this matter.
I also observe that under Section 76 of the Civil Procedure Act which regulates/governs Orders from which appeals line, an Order of this Court on Revision cannot be appealed against automatically within the provisions of Section 76 of the Civil Procedure Act.
If the Applicant wished to appeal against the decision of the Hon. Judge, then they had to apply for leave to appeal from this Court or from the Court of Appeal if this Court denied the said leave. This has not been done so the instant application is not properly before this Court.
There can be no application for Stay of execution pending a non- existent appeal. The said leave should have been under the provisions of Order 44 (3) and (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
All in all I find that this application is incompetent as it seeks a stay of execution pending a non-existent appeal.
It is struck out with costs to the Respondents. The Orders made on Revision in Misc. Cause 1/2006 are to be enforced accordingly.
**Godfrey Namundi**
**Judge**
**12/6/2014**
12/6/2014:
Applicant absent
Respondents present
Munulo for Respondents
Court: Ruling read in Court.
**Godfrey Namundi**
**Judge**
**12/6/2014**