[1993] UGHCCD 6

[1993] UGHCCD 6

The application was fatally defective because it failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules. Specifically, the notice of motion did not state any grounds for the application as required by Order 48 rule 3, and the application was brought under a provision (Order 39 rule 4(4)) that does not empower the court to review or set aside orders made by District Registrars regarding stay of execution. Furthermore, the application was not presented to the judge who made the order, contrary to Order 42 rules 2 and 4. These procedural defects rendered the application incurably defective and misconceived, warranting its dismissal with costs.

Citation
[1993] UGHCCD 6
Parties
Applicant: Angel Sewamala; Respondent: Alex Bembe; Respondent: John Odwori; Respondent: David Ochwo; Respondent: Vicent Epusi; Respondent: E. Omoit; Respondent: G. Mudawe; Respondent: Alex Onyango
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
12 October 1993
Case Number
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2014
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review or Setting Aside Order of Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Judges
Kato, J
Legal Topics
Review of Orders, Stay of Execution, Notice of Motion Requirements
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Review of Orders Stay of Execution Notice of Motion Requirements

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angel Sewamala

Applicant

Alex Bembe

Respondent

John Odwori

Respondent

David Ochwo

Respondent

Vicent Epusi

Respondent

E. Omoit

Respondent

G. Mudawe

Respondent

Alex Onyango

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review or Setting Aside Order of Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for review or setting aside the order of stay of execution was properly before the court.
  2. 2 Whether the notice of motion complied with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. 3 Whether the application was brought under the correct legal provision.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was fatally defective because it failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules. Specifically, the notice of motion did not state any grounds for the application as required by Order 48 rule 3, and the application was brought under a provision (Order 39 rule 4(4)) that does not empower the court to review or set aside orders made by District Registrars regarding stay of execution. Furthermore, the application was not presented to the judge who made the order, contrary to Order 42 rules 2 and 4. These procedural defects rendered the application incurably defective and misconceived, warranting its dismissal with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
  • The appeal between the same parties is to be fixed for hearing as soon as possible if ready.