THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGA DA AT KAMPALA

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 242 OF 2012
(Arising out of Misc. Application No. 91 of 2012 & Mise Application No. 9012012)

1. GODFREY KASUJJA
2. RICHARD JJINGO
3. NABUMPENJJE RESTY
----------------------APPLICANTS
-----------------------

4. NEV NAKABUYE

5. KAMUGISHA JOHN
10

6. BIHAGALO
7. JAMES KABUTULA
8. YOSIA RWENTANGA
VERSUS
PAUL NJAWUKANA

(.

/.5

CORAM:

===================

RESPONDENTS

HON. MR. JUSTICE KENNETH KAKURU, JA

(SINGLE JUSTICE)

RULING
This matter come to me as a Single Justice of Appeal by way of reference
from the decision of the Registrar of this Court dated 23ru July 2012 in

-------

which he granted an interim order of stay of execution pending the hearing

of the substantive application for stay of execution pending in this Court.

The interim order reads as follows:

a) An interim order of stay of the decree in HCT-06-CV-CS-0045

5

of

2003 Masaka High Court doth issue for 30 days of until further
orders of this court.

'.

.: J

b) Costs be in the cause.

It is this interim order the applicant now seeks to vacate, and have it
substituted with an order of injunction maintaining the status quo as at the
10

time the High Court judgment was delivered.

From the onset let me clarify that I am entertaining this application under
(.-

Sec ion 12 of the Judicature Act and Rules 2 (2) (b), 42(2) and Rules 6(2)
of the Rules of this Court. These rules read together with Section 12 of the
Judicature Act grant power to a single justice of appeal to make orders of
15

stay of execution, injunction and stay of proceedings as this court may think

just, to safe guard the right of appeal and to prevent abuse of court process
and attain ends of justice.

Am exercising inherent powers of this court and I am therefore not treating

this as reference from the decision of the Registrar because it is not me.
5

The interim order of the registrar above mentioned was to last 30 days from
11th July 2012. On 15th October 2012 it was extended to 15th November

2012. It was extended again as far as I could gather from the record to 6th
March 2013, then to 28th July 2013.

This was the last extension as far as I could ascertain from the court
10

record.

At the time this matter came before me for hearing therefore there was no
,,_

subsisting interim order of stay of execution. There is no order for me to

vacate.

The respondent does not seem to be keen on having the main application
15

for stay of execution fixed for hearing. But he has been very keen on
having the interim order extended. Indeed on 9th September 2013 the

respondents counsel by letter, requested the Registrar to again extend the

interim order. The Registrar, this time rightly declined

to do so. Am

therefore at loss as to what this application is intended to achieve, there

being no order to vacate.

The practice where Registrar of this Court issues opened ended interim
orders must end. In this particular case the respondent had never made a
formal application

for renewal

of the interim order.

Counsel

for the

respondent would only write a letter to the Registrar of this Court seeking
extension upon which he could just attach an already drafted and formatted
10

order of extension with blank lines for the Registrar to insert dates. And as
the record indicates the Registrar would then just insert a date, sign and
seal. This is an unacceptable practice.

Upon expiry on the interim order the proper procedure would be for the
applicant to file a fresh application that would require a hearing of the
15

matter inter parties. I agree with the learned Registrar of this Court when he
refused to extend the interim order on the ground that there was nothing to
extend. An interim order is not like bail which is always extended. In case of

'

bail it is stated in the order itself that it is renewable, however once it lapses
a fresh application has to be made for its re-instatement.

Since I have already stated that am exercising the inherent powers of this
Court I will proceed to determine this application as the justice of this case
5

requires, in accordance with the law I have cited above.

A stay of execution

pending appeal in this court ought to follow the

guidelines set out by the Supreme Court in the case of Eunice Busingye vs.
Lawrence Musitwa Kyazze.

S- c.e, A ,No

13 OI9?d

(U '""'-yw ~

"j

A stay of execution also acts as an injunctive relief. It must not be used to

10

favour one party against the other. In this particular case the justice of the
case demands that the status quo in respect of the suit property be
maintained until the hearing and of the appeal or the main application for
stay of execution herein.

Accordingly I issue an order of temporary injunction requiring both parties

15

to maintain the status quo in respect of the suit land and restraining any
one of them for wasting, selling or otherwise alienating the suit land until

bail it is stated in the order itself that it is renewable, however once it lapses
a fresh application has to be made for its re-instatement.

Since I have already stated that am exercising the inherent powers of this
Court I will proceed to determine this application as the justice of this case
s

requires, in accordance with the law I have cited above.

A stay of execution

pending appeal in this court ought to follow the

guidelines set out by the Supreme Court in the case of Eunice Busingye vs.
Lawrence Musitwa Kyazze.

c.e, A

/JI?

/3

tr'1 'Ud (U...~ ~ ')

A stay of execution also acts as an injunctive relief. It must not be used to

10

favour one party against the other. In this particular case the justice of the
case demands that the status quo in respect of the suit property be
maintained until the hearing and of the appeal or the main application for
stay of execution herein.

Accordingly I issue an order of temporary injunction requiring both parties

lS

to maintain the status quo in respect of the suit land and restraining any
one of them for wasting, selling or otherwise alienating the suit land until

-,
r

the hearing and determination of the main application for stay of execution
herein or until the hearing of the appeal whichever comes earlier.

The execution of the High court order for payment of costs to the applicant
is stayed until the determination
5

execution

pending

herein,

of the main application

or the determination

for stay of

of the appeal

itself

whichever comes earlier.

The Registrar is directed to fix the appeal herein for hearing at the earlier
convenient date.

The costs of this application will abide the results of the appeal.

10

J.r....

Dated at Kampala this ...

October, 2013.

.............. ~

HON. KENNETH KAKURU

JUSTICE OF APPEAL