[2009] UGHC 188

[2009] UGHC 188

The court held that the objection raised by the respondent was sustainable. The applicant's decision had already been declared a nullity by the court, and the consequential orders (certiorari and prohibition) took immediate effect. The operative order to repeat the tender process was directed to the Civil Aviation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] UGHC 188
Parties
Applicant: Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority; Respondent: Clear Channel Independent (U) Limited
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Misc. App. No. 242 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Judicial Review Orders, Certiorari and Prohibition, Nullity of Administrative Decisions
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Judicial Review Orders Certiorari and Prohibition Nullity of Administrative Decisions

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority

Applicant

Clear Channel Independent (U) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether a stay of execution can be granted in respect of orders of certiorari and prohibition that have immediate effect.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has legal grounds to seek a stay against the respondent when the operative order is directed to a third party (CAA).

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the objection raised by the respondent was sustainable. The applicant's decision had already been declared a nullity by the court, and the consequential orders (certiorari and prohibition) took immediate effect. The operative order to repeat the tender process was directed to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which was not a party to the proceedings. Therefore, the application for stay of execution against the respondent was misconceived, as the respondent was not the party required to act on the order. The court further clarified that a nullity is incurably bad and does not require a stay, and that the applicant's right to seek relief lies with the court handling...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The objection is allowed and the application for stay of execution is dismissed as against the respondent.
  • Each party shall meet its own costs herein.