[2013] UGHCCD 97

[2013] UGHCCD 97

The court found that the applicant demonstrated sufficient urgency for Miscellaneous Application No. 325 of 2013 to be heard during court vacation. The urgency was established by the imminent risk of execution of a consent judgment to which the applicant was not a party, and the potential sale of perishable and volatile goods belonging to the applicant. The court applied Rule 4 of the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules, which allows for urgent civil matters to be heard during vacation, and confirmed that the application was properly supported by a certificate of urgency and brought under the correct procedural rules. Therefore, the application was certified as urgent and set for hearing...

Citation
[2013] UGHCCD 97
Parties
Applicant: Societe Bisimaki Bakanova; Respondent: M/S Damco Logistics (U) Ltd; Respondent: M/S Mada Foodstuffs & Chemical Dealers Ltd
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
18 July 2013
Case Number
Misc. Application No. 341/2013
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application_granted
Legal Topics
Court Vacation Rules, Stay of Execution, Certificate of Urgency
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Court Vacation Rules Stay of Execution Certificate of Urgency

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Societe Bisimaki Bakanova

Applicant

M/S Damco Logistics (U) Ltd

Respondent

M/S Mada Foodstuffs & Chemical Dealers Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Miscellaneous Application No. 325 of 2013 should be certified as a matter of urgency and heard during court vacation.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant risks substantial loss and irreparable damage if the application is not heard urgently.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant, not being a party to the consent judgment, is entitled to urgent intervention to prevent execution against its goods.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant demonstrated sufficient urgency for Miscellaneous Application No. 325 of 2013 to be heard during court vacation. The urgency was established by the imminent risk of execution of a consent judgment to which the applicant was not a party, and the potential sale of perishable and volatile goods belonging to the applicant. The court applied Rule 4 of the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules, which allows for urgent civil matters to be heard during vacation, and confirmed that the application was properly supported by a certificate of urgency and brought under the correct procedural rules. Therefore, the application was certified as urgent and set for hearing...

Court Disposition

application_granted

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No. 325 of 2013 is certified as a matter of urgency.
  • The application is set for hearing on 19th July 2013 during court vacation.