Share
Damulira and Another v Bukirwa and Another (Civil Application No. 357 of 2021) [2022] UGCA 119 (12 April 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] UGCA 119
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Kakuru, JA
- Case number
- Civil Application No. 357 of 2021
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Kakuru, JA
- Case number
- Civil Application No. 357 of 2021
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that although both parties failed to comply with the timelines for filing written submissions, in the interest of justice and pursuant to Rule 2(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the application for an interim stay should be allowed. The applicants demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of an interim order to preserve their liberty, privacy, and occupation of the suit land pending the determination of the main application. The court exercised its discretion to allow the application, warning the parties to strictly comply with future court directives.
Court disposition
application allowed
Orders
- An interim order is granted in the terms set out in the Notice of Motion.
- The order shall lapse on 12th June, 2022.
- The Registrar is directed to fix the main application for hearing before 12th June, 2022.
- Costs shall abide the result of the main application.
02
Material facts
Parties
Edward Damulira
ApplicantEphraim Kakande
ApplicantBrenda Bukirwa Kyagulanyi
RespondentStephen Lwanyaga Kyagutanyi
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Stay Application / Interim Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicants are entitled to an interim order staying execution of the High Court orders pending determination of the main application.
- 02
Whether the parties complied with the court's directions regarding filing of written submissions.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants sought an interim order to stay execution of the High Court orders restraining the respondents from interfering with their liberty, privacy, and occupation of the suit land, pending the hearing of the main application. They argued that failure to grant the stay would render the appeal nugatory and cause irreparable harm.
- Respondent
- The respondents contested the application, arguing that the applicants had not met the requirements for grant of an interim stay and that the application should be dismissed. They also filed their submissions out of time.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 2(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules
The court may grant an interim order to preserve the status quo pending determination of the main application if the applicant demonstrates a prima facie case and risk of irreparable harm.
- 02
Court of Appeal Rules and inherent powers of the court
Parties must comply with court directives regarding timelines for filing submissions, but the court may exercise discretion in the interest of justice.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that although both parties failed to comply with the timelines for filing written submissions, in the interest of justice and pursuant to Rule 2(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the application for an interim stay should be allowed. The applicants demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of an interim order to preserve their liberty, privacy, and occupation of the suit land pending the determination of the main application. The court exercised its discretion to allow the application, warning the parties to strictly comply with future court directives.
Obiter and limits
- Failure to comply with court directives on filing submissions may result in dismissal of applications in the future.
- The court will exercise its discretion in the interest of justice but expects strict compliance from parties.
Court disposition
application allowed
- An interim order is granted in the terms set out in the Notice of Motion.
- The order shall lapse on 12th June, 2022.
- The Registrar is directed to fix the main application for hearing before 12th June, 2022.
- Costs shall abide the result of the main application.
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal 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.
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 357 OF 2O2I
(Arising from Civil Appeal no' 299 of2OL9)
1. EDWARD DAMULIRA 2. EPHRAIM KAKANDE APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. BRENDABUKIRWAKYAGULANYI 2, STEPHEN LWANYAGA KYAGUTANYI RESPONDENTS
CORAM: Hon. Mr, )ustice Kenneth Kakuru, fA
RULING OF IUSTICE KENNETH KAKURU' IA (Single iustice)
This is an application seeking for an interim order staying the orders of the High court and restraining the respondents, their agents, workers or any other persons bound by the said orders of the High court from executing or interfering with the and applicants liberty, privacy by arresting or in way interfering with the applicants occupation, accommodation on the suit land located on Block 2 21 Plot 42L' Plot 2268 and Plot 2269 originally registered proprietor Late Erisa N. G Kyagulanyi. The orders were granted by Hon. Justice cornelia Kakooza Sabiiti, ] on 26th June,2019 in High Court Civil Suit No. 270 of 2017.
The grounds of this application are contained in the Notice of Motion and the application is supported by an affidavit deponed to by the 2nd applicant expounding on the grounds set out in the motion. I have found no reason to reproduce it here.
The respondents filed an affidavit in reply deponed to by the Znd respondent contesting the application. I also have found no reason to reproduce it here
This Court directed both parties to this application to file written submissions. I found no need for oral submissions. The applicants were directed to file written submissions by 4<sup>th</sup> April, 2022 and the respondents were directed to file theirs by 11<sup>th</sup> April, 2022.
The applicant filed the written submissions which are on Court record on 11<sup>th</sup> April, 2022 which is out of time. The respondents also failed to comply with the said directions of this Court as their submissions were filed out of time on 12<sup>th</sup> April, 2022.
I would have dismissed this application straight away. But in the interest of justice and pursuant to Rule 2(2) of the Rules of this Court, I will allow it with a warning to parties to strictly comply with directives of this Court
I am satisfied that the applicants have proved their case.
This application is hereby allowed.
I hereby make the following orders;-
- 1. An interim order is hereby granted in the terms set out in the Notice of Motion. - 2. The order shall lapse on $12^{th}$ June, 2022. - 3. The Registrar of this Court is hereby directed to fix the main application for hearing before 12<sup>th</sup> June, 2022. - 4. Costs shall abide the result of the main application.
Dated at Kampala this ....................................
Amogourn-
Kenneth Kakuru JUSTICE OF APPEAL
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.