Share
Damulira and another v Kyagulanyi (Civil Appeal No. 357 of 2019) [2022] UGCA 145 (12 April 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] UGCA 145
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Kakuru, JA
- Case number
- Civil Appeal No. 357 of 2019
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Kakuru, JA
- Case number
- Civil Appeal No. 357 of 2019
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that, despite both parties failing to comply with the directives on timely filing of written submissions, the interests of justice required that the application be considered on its merits. The applicants had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of an interim order to stay the execution of the High Court orders, as their liberty, privacy, and occupation of the suit land were at risk. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 2(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules to allow the application, warning parties to strictly comply with future directives. The interim order was granted to preserve the status quo pending the hearing of the main application.
Court disposition
application allowed
Orders
- An interim order is hereby granted in the terms set out in the Notice of Motion.
- The order shall lapse on 12th June, 2022.
- The Registrar of this Court 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 Kyagulanyi
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Stay Application / Interim Order Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicants are entitled to an interim order staying execution of the High Court orders.
- 02
Whether the applicants have demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of an interim order.
- 03
Whether non-compliance with court directives on filing submissions should result in dismissal of the application.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants sought an interim order to stay the execution of the High Court orders, arguing that their liberty and privacy were at risk due to possible arrest or interference with their occupation and accommodation on the suit land. They relied on the grounds set out in their Notice of Motion and supporting affidavit, emphasizing the need to preserve the status quo pending determination of the main application.
- Respondent
- The respondents contested the application through an affidavit in reply, arguing that the applicants had not met the threshold for grant of an interim order and that the orders of the High Court should be executed. They also filed written submissions, albeit out of time, challenging the merits of the application.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 2(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules
The court may grant interim orders to preserve the status quo pending determination of the main application, provided sufficient grounds are demonstrated.
- 02
Court of Appeal Rules and inherent jurisdiction
Non-compliance with court directives on filing submissions may warrant dismissal, but the court may exercise discretion in the interest of justice.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that, despite both parties failing to comply with the directives on timely filing of written submissions, the interests of justice required that the application be considered on its merits. The applicants had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of an interim order to stay the execution of the High Court orders, as their liberty, privacy, and occupation of the suit land were at risk. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 2(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules to allow the application, warning parties to strictly comply with future directives. The interim order was granted to preserve the status quo pending the hearing of the main application.
Obiter and limits
- Parties are warned to strictly comply with directives of this Court regarding filing of submissions.
- The court may exercise discretion to allow applications in the interest of justice, even where procedural lapses occur.
Court disposition
application allowed
- An interim order is hereby granted in the terms set out in the Notice of Motion.
- The order shall lapse on 12th June, 2022.
- The Registrar of this Court 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.