[2023] UGHC 322
The application for stay of execution cannot be determined in the absence of service on the respondent. The principles of natural justice and Article 28 of the Constitution require that a party against whom relief is sought must be notified and given an opportunity to respond. The court found no evidence of service...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] UGHC 322
- Parties
- Applicant: Nyansiana Talidda Serwadda; Applicant: Emmanuel Lwanga; Applicant: Leonard Kisuule; Applicant: Berna Guttabinghi; Applicant: Maria Webuzawaaki; Applicant: Joseph Mayoba; Applicant: Wasswa Peter; Applicant: Steven Kalema; Respondent: Buyungo Samuel
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 158 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- Katamba Nkwanga, J
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Service of Process, Interim Orders, Substantial Loss, Natural Justice
- 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
Nyansiana Talidda Serwadda
Applicant
Emmanuel Lwanga
Applicant
Leonard Kisuule
Applicant
Berna Guttabinghi
Applicant
Maria Webuzawaaki
Applicant
Joseph Mayoba
Applicant
Wasswa Peter
Applicant
Steven Kalema
Applicant
Buyungo Samuel
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for stay of execution can be determined in the absence of service on the respondent.
- 2 Whether the interim order for stay of execution was issued in error and should be recalled.
Ratio Decidendi
The application for stay of execution cannot be determined in the absence of service on the respondent. The principles of natural justice and Article 28 of the Constitution require that a party against whom relief is sought must be notified and given an opportunity to respond. The court found no evidence of service of the application on the respondent, which explained the lack of reply or submissions from the respondent. Proceeding to determine the application without service would amount to condemning the respondent unheard. Additionally, the interim order previously issued was recalled as it was made in error, purporting to remain in force pending determination of the Supreme Court...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The ex parte interim order made on 20th May 2022 against the respondent is recalled/vacated.
- The main application for stay of execution is dismissed with no order as to costs for want of service.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
#### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
# IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT MASAKA **MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 158 OF 2021** (ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO. 001 OF 2012)
- 1. NYANSIANA TALIDDA SERWADDA - 2. EMMANUEL LWANGA - 3. LEONARD KISUULE - 4. BERNA GUTTABINGI - 5. MARIA WEBUZAWAAKI - 6. JOSEPH MAYOBA - 7. WASSWA PETER - 8. STEVEN KALEMA ....................................
# **VERSUS**
BUYUNGO SAMUEL ....................................
#### RULING
Hon. Lady Justice Victoria N. N. Katamba
### BACKGROUND
The Respondent sued the Applicants successfully for a declaration that he is the rightful owner of land comprised in Buddu Block 369 Plot 494 among other reliefs. The Respondents were dissatisfied with the Judgment and orders of the Late Hon. Mr. Justice V. F Musoke Kibuuka as he then was and appealed to the Court of Appeal of Uganda. The Court of Appeal found no merit in the Applicants appeal and dismissed it. The Applicants were still dissatisfied with the orders of the Court of Appeal and have since appealed to the Supreme Court. The Respondents through their Advocate appeared before this court on 20<sup>th</sup> May 2022 and informed court of the existence of imminent threat of execution. This court graciously granted an oral application for interim stay of execution pending determination of the main application for stay of execution inter parties. The Applicants were directed to serve the main application for stay of execution on the Respondent and file a return of service. Further directives were given for both parties to file a reply, rejoinder
$9/02/223$
and submissions. The court then retired to deliver its Ruling in the main application for stay of execution. Unfortunately, through a clerical error, the interim order was written erroneously as to purport to remain in force pending determination of the Applicants' appeal in the Supreme court instead of pending determination of the main application of stay of execution, inter parties.
#### Representation
The Applicant was represented by M/s Nyanzi, Kiboneka & Mbabazi Advocates
The Respondent neither filed an affidavit in reply nor submissions.
# APPLICANT'S SUBMISSIONS
The Applicants submitted that their application is brought under Section 33 of the Judicature Act which enjoins this court to grant absolutely or on such terms and conditions it deems appropriate remedies to ensure that all matters in controversy between the parties are settled in finality.
The Applicant also submitted that Order 22 rule 23 of the CPR empowers this court stay execution of Decrees upon sufficient cause being shown.
The Applicant rightly submitted that the Application for stay of execution must disclose that;
- There is a pending appeal - There is an eminent threat of execution - That the Applicant will suffer substantial loss if the order for stay of execution is not made. - That the application has sufficient cause or has been made without unreasonable delay - That security for due performance of the Decree has been made.
In answering the above conditions, the Applicants submitted that their affidavit in support of the application discloses that they have filed and served a notice of appeal and a letter requesting for the record of the court of appeal.
The Applicants further submitted that their affidavit demonstrates that there is a serious threat of execution because the certificate of title to the suit land has already been handed over to court to enable execution. That the suit land is home to the some of the Applicants who stand to suffer substantial loss. That the affidavit further demonstrates sufficient cause and that the requirement to deposit security for due performance of the Decree is not mandatory and is not appropriate to the circumstances of this suit.
In conclusion, the Applicants prayed that the Application be allowed and execution be stayed pending determination of their appeal in the Supreme court.
$9|02|2223$
# DETERMINATION BY COURT.
ISSUE: Whether this Application for stay of execution may be determined?
To begin with, in the background I noted an error that was made in the Order of interim stay of execution purporting to remain in force pending determination of the Applicant's appeal in the Supreme Court. This court is empowered under S.99 of the Civil Procedure Act to correct clerical and arithmetical errors in its Judgments and Rulings.
The court hereby moves itself to recall the ex parte interim order that was issued in error. As clearly discernable from the ruling of the court, the order was intended to offer an interim relief to the Applicants pending hearing and determination inter parties of this main application for stay of execution. This is further demonstrated by this court's stern directives to the Applicants to serve this main application on the Respondent in the same Ruling.
As regards to the merits of this Application, I have carefully perused the file and found no return of service of this Application. This explains why the Respondent has not filed an affidavit in reply either.
Article 28 of the Constitution of Uganda 1995 and the rules of natural Justice dictate that a person against whom a suit has been brought has to be notified of the suit. The rationale for this is to enable the person sued to reply to the claim against him and afford him a hearing.
It cannot be disputed that the Respondent stands to be affected by any orders that may be made against him under this application. Determining the instant Application in the current state of affairs would amount to condemning the Respondent unheard.
In the circumstances, the court is constrained to disallow the application. The issue is answered in the negative and the Application is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
I so order.
Orders:
1. The Ex parte Interim Order made on the 20<sup>th</sup> May 2022 against the Respondent is recalled/vacated.
$9|22|2223$
2. This main Application for stay of execution is dismissed with no order as to costs for want of service.
Dated and delivered electronically this 9<sup>th</sup> day of February, 2023
HON. LADY JUSTICE VICTORIA NAKINTU NKWANGA KATAMBA