[2023] UGHC 322

[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
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Service of Process Interim Orders Substantial Loss Natural Justice

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether the application for stay of execution can be determined in the absence of service on the respondent.
  2. 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.