[2013] UGSC 9

[2013] UGSC 9

The court found that the applicants had established that they lodged a Notice of Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal and that a substantive application for stay of execution was pending before the Supreme Court. The court was satisfied that there was a real threat of execution of the decree, as the decree had been issued and the respondent intended to execute it. Although the applicants' counsel had been dilatory, the court held that the interests of justice required that the applicants not be penalized for their counsel's conduct. Accordingly, the court granted an interim order staying execution of the decree for 30 days, with provisions for extension if the substantive...

Citation
[2013] UGSC 9
Parties
Applicant: Yakobo M. N. Senkungu; Applicant: James Kentura; Applicant: John Rwakamuranga; Applicant: Misaki Rwampigaane; Applicant: Giradesi Katonya; Applicant: Yohana Rwakaaro; Respondent: Crescensio Mukasa
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
27 September 2013
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 5 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Interim Stay of Execution Pending Determination of Substantive Application
Outcome
application allowed in part
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Interim Orders, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Interim Orders Appeal Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yakobo M. N. Senkungu

Applicant

James Kentura

Applicant

John Rwakamuranga

Applicant

Misaki Rwampigaane

Applicant

Giradesi Katonya

Applicant

Yohana Rwakaaro

Applicant

Crescensio Mukasa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Application for Interim Stay of Execution Pending Determination of Substantive Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have satisfied the requirements for grant of an interim order staying execution of the decree pending determination of the substantive application.
  2. 2 Whether there is a substantive application for stay of execution pending before the court.
  3. 3 Whether there is a serious threat of execution of the decree before the substantive application is heard.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had established that they lodged a Notice of Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal and that a substantive application for stay of execution was pending before the Supreme Court. The court was satisfied that there was a real threat of execution of the decree, as the decree had been issued and the respondent intended to execute it. Although the applicants' counsel had been dilatory, the court held that the interests of justice required that the applicants not be penalized for their counsel's conduct. Accordingly, the court granted an interim order staying execution of the decree for 30 days, with provisions for extension if the substantive...

Court Disposition

application allowed in part

Orders

  • An interim order staying execution of the decree is granted for 30 days from the date of this order.
  • Applicants must take steps to move the Registrar to fix Civil Application No. 4 of 2013 before the interim order expires.