Share
Attorney General v Ssejjemba (Constitutional Application 10 of 2021) [2021] UGSC 1 (21 December 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] UGSC 1
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Supreme Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Opio Aweri, JSC, Tuhaise, JSC, Mike Chibita, JSC
- Case number
- Constitutional Application 10 of 2021
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Opio Aweri, JSC, Tuhaise, JSC, Mike Chibita, JSC
- Case number
- Constitutional Application 10 of 2021
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Supreme Court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of an interim stay of execution, as there was a substantive application pending and a real risk of execution before its determination. The court held that it was in the interest of justice to preserve the status quo and prevent possible prejudice to the applicant. The court was also satisfied that the respondent would not suffer prejudice as a result of the interim stay. Accordingly, the interim order for stay of execution of the Constitutional Court's judgment and declarations was granted pending the final disposal of the substantive application, with the order to remain in force for three months or until further orders are made.
Court disposition
interim stay of execution granted pending determination of substantive application
Orders
- An interim stay of execution of the decision of the Constitutional Court in Petition No. 37 of 2014 is granted pending final disposal of the substantive application.
- The interim order shall stay in force for three months or until further orders are given in the substantive application.
- Costs will be in the cause.
02
Material facts
Parties
Attorney General
Applicant Counsel: Patricia MutesiSsejemba Israel
Respondent Counsel: Isaac Obiro Ekirapa03
Procedural history
Posture
Constitutional Application / Interim Stay of Execution Pending Determination of Substantive Application
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether an interim stay of execution of the Constitutional Court's decision should be granted pending determination of the substantive application.
- 02
Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of an interim stay of execution.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that they are dissatisfied with the Constitutional Court's judgment and have filed a substantive application for stay of execution. There is an imminent threat of execution before the substantive application is heard, and it is just and equitable to grant an interim stay. Authorities cited include Hassan Basajjabalaba & Another vs Attorney General & 2 Others and Hwan Sung Industries Ltd vs Tajdin Hussein & 2 Others.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued, relying on persuasive authorities such as Infinity Telecom (U) vs Ecobank Ltd & Ors and Constitutional & Human Rights Division Petition No. 39 of 2017, that the application for interim stay should not be granted and that the applicant has not met the threshold for such relief.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Hassan Basajjabalaba & Another vs Attorney General & 2 Others Misc. Application No. 04 of 2018; Hwan Sung Industries Ltd vs Tajdin Hussein & 2 Others SCCA No. 19 of 2008
An interim stay of execution may be granted where there is a pending substantive application and a real risk of execution before its determination, provided it is just and equitable to do so.
- 02
Infinity Telecom (U) vs Ecobank Ltd & Ors HCMA No. 2128 of 2016
The court must consider whether the respondent will suffer prejudice if the interim stay is granted.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Supreme Court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of an interim stay of execution, as there was a substantive application pending and a real risk of execution before its determination. The court held that it was in the interest of justice to preserve the status quo and prevent possible prejudice to the applicant. The court was also satisfied that the respondent would not suffer prejudice as a result of the interim stay. Accordingly, the interim order for stay of execution of the Constitutional Court's judgment and declarations was granted pending the final disposal of the substantive application, with the order to remain in force for three months or until further orders are made.
Obiter and limits
- Costs will be in the cause.
- The interim order shall stay in force for three months, or until further orders are given in the substantive application.
Court disposition
interim stay of execution granted pending determination of substantive application
- An interim stay of execution of the decision of the Constitutional Court in Petition No. 37 of 2014 is granted pending final disposal of the substantive application.
- The interim order shall stay in force for three months or until further orders are given in the substantive application.
- Costs will be in the cause.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Uganda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION NO. 10 OF 2021 (CORAM: OPIO-AWERI; TUHAISE; CHIBITA: JJSC)
(An application arising out of Constitutional Application No. 09 of 2021 arising from Constitutional Petition No. 37 of 2014)
ATTORNEY GENERAL $\begin{smallmatrix} & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &$ APPLICANT
AND
..................................... SSEJJEMBA ISRAEL
RULING OF THE COURT
This is an application brought by Notice of Motion under Rules $2(2)$ , $6(2)(b)$ , 42 & 43(1) of the (Supreme Court Rules) Directions, seeking the following Orders:
- 1. That an Interim stay of execution of the decision of the Constitutional Court in Petition No. 37 of 2014 delivered on 5<sup>th</sup> October, 2021 be granted. - 2. Costs of the application be provided for
The application is accompanied by an affidavit sworn by Lillian Bucyana, on behalf of the Applicant.
The respondent filed an affidavit in reply.
The background to the application is that the Respondent was sued in Makindye Chief Magistrates Court under the (Small Claims
$\overline{a}$
- Procedure) Rules. Judgment was entered against him and on finding out that he could neither appeal nor retain the services of a lawyer, he filed a constitutional petition under article 137(3) of the Constitution seeking declarations that the Judicature (Small Claims Procedure) Rules 2011 contravene the right to appeal and the nonderogable right to a fair hearing. - The Constitutional Court granted the prayers of the respondent and declared that failure to provide for the right of appeal and the right to legal representation by the Judicature (Small Claims Procedure) Rules was unconstitutional.
It is against this decision of the Constitutional Court that the applicant seeks an Interim stay of execution pending final determination of the substantive application.
REPRESENTATION
The Applicant was represented by Patricia Mutesi, Commissioner from the Attorney General's chambers while the Respondent was represented by Isaac Obiro Ekirapa. The respondent, Israel Ssejemba, was in attendance.
SUBMISSIONS
The parties filed written submissions. Counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is dissatisfied with the judgment and declarations of the Constitutional Court in Petition No. 37 of 2014 delivered on 5<sup>th</sup> October, 2021, has filed a substantive application for stay of execution, there is an imminent threat of execution before the hearing of the substantive application for stay of execution and that it is just and equitable to grant an interim stay of execution.
He referred court to Hassan Basajjabalaba & Another vs Attorney General & 2 Others Misc. Application No. 04 of 2018 and Hwan
Sung Industries Industries Ltd vs Tajdin Hussein & 2 Others SCCA No. 19 of 2008
In reply, Counsel for the respondent submitted and referred court to various persuasive authorities including Infinity Telecom (U) vs Ecobank Ltd & Ors HCMA No. 2128 of 2016.
He also cited Constitutional & Human Rights Division Petition No. 39 of 2017
CONSIDERATION BY COURT
We have had occasion to read through the application and the accompanying affidavit. We have also read through and considered the affidavit in reply.
We have also perused the submissions by both Counsel.
We find that it is in the interest of justice to grant the Interim Order for stay of the judgment and declarations of the Constitutional Court in Petition No. 37 of 2014 delivered on 5<sup>th</sup> October, 2021, pending final disposal of the substantive application.
We are persuaded that the respondent will not suffer prejudice.
The Interim Order staying the execution is hereby granted as prayed.
This order shall stay in force for three months, or until further orders are given in the substantive application.
Costs will be in the cause.
Dated at Kampala, this ....................................
JUSTICE OPIO-AWERI
Delivered by the Registran 21/12/
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUSTICE PERCY NIGHT TUHAISE
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUSTICE MIKE CHIBITA
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.