Share
Munobwa v Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (Misc. Application No. 221 of 2011) [2014] UGHCCD 80 (12 June 2014)
- Citation
- [2014] UGHCCD 80
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
- Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling
- Case number
- Misc. Application No. 221 of 2011
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
- Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling
- Case number
- Misc. Application No. 221 of 2011
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application for stay of execution is incompetent because there is no valid appeal pending; leave to appeal against the revisional order was neither sought nor obtained as required by law. The provisions cited by the applicant, specifically Order 48 r. 1 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, are irrelevant to the present matter since they pertain to District Registries, which does not apply to this Court. Without leave to appeal, there can be no application for stay of execution pending a non-existent appeal. The application is therefore struck out, and the orders made on revision are to be enforced.
Court disposition
application_struck_out
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is struck out as incompetent.
- Costs are awarded to the respondent.
- Orders made on Revision in Misc. Cause 1/2006 are to be enforced accordingly.
02
Material facts
Parties
Munobwa Mohamed
ApplicantUganda Muslim Supreme Council
Respondent Counsel: Munulo03
Procedural history
Posture
Stay Application / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application for stay of execution is competent in the absence of a valid appeal.
- 02
Whether leave to appeal was required and obtained before filing the application for stay.
- 03
Whether the cited provisions of law are applicable to the present application.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought a stay of execution of the Order/Decree arising from Civil Revision 1/2006, pending determination of a civil appeal. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal and applied for a record of proceedings to enable filing the appeal in the Court of Appeal. The application was supported by an affidavit and referenced several provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules.
- Respondent
- The respondent opposed the application, arguing that there was no valid appeal before the court as leave to appeal had not been sought or granted. The respondent contended that the application was incompetent and that the cited provisions, particularly Order 48 r. 1 & 3, were irrelevant to the matter at hand.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 76, Civil Procedure Act; Order 44 (3) and (4), Civil Procedure Rules
An application for stay of execution pending appeal must be premised on a valid and subsisting appeal.
- 02
Section 83, Civil Procedure Act
Leave to appeal is required for appeals against revisional orders of the High Court.
- 03
Order 48 r. 1 & 3, Civil Procedure Rules
Citing irrelevant procedural rules renders an application incompetent.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application for stay of execution is incompetent because there is no valid appeal pending; leave to appeal against the revisional order was neither sought nor obtained as required by law. The provisions cited by the applicant, specifically Order 48 r. 1 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, are irrelevant to the present matter since they pertain to District Registries, which does not apply to this Court. Without leave to appeal, there can be no application for stay of execution pending a non-existent appeal. The application is therefore struck out, and the orders made on revision are to be enforced.
Obiter and limits
- Repeated adjournments without sufficient justification undermine the efficient administration of justice.
- Applicants must ensure that all procedural requirements, including seeking leave to appeal, are strictly complied with before filing applications for stay of execution.
Court disposition
application_struck_out
- The application for stay of execution is struck out as incompetent.
- Costs are awarded to the respondent.
- Orders made on Revision in Misc. Cause 1/2006 are to be enforced accordingly.
Source and reliance status
HC: Civil Division (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.
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT JINJA
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 221 OF 2011
ARISING FROM REVISION CAUSE NO. 001 OF 2006
ARISING FROM KALIRO CIVIL SUIT NO. 033 OF 2002
MUNOBWA MOHAMED :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT
VERSUS
UGANDA MOSLIM SUPREME COUNCIL ::: RESPONDENT
BEFORE: THE HON. MR. JUSTICE GODFREY NAMUNDI
RULING/ORDER
This application was filed under Section 33 of the Judicature Act, Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, order 48 r. 1 & 3 and Order 52 r. 1, 2, and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
It seeks orders for stay of execution of the Order/Decree arising from Civil Revision 1/2006, pending the determination of a Civil Appeal in respect of the said Orders.
The Order in Revision was delivered by Hon. Lady Justice Irene MulyagonjaKakooza on 26/8/2010, dismissing an application for Revision of the Orders of the lower Court in Civil suit 33/2002 held at Kaliro Court.
The Applicants then filed a Notice of Appeal in this Court on 9/9/2010 and according to the Notice of Motion and the affidavit in support thereof, applied for a record of proceedings to enable the Applicants file the appeal in the Court of Appeal.
This application has not been heard since then with the record filled with applications for adjournment for one reason or another. I have counted over 10 adjournments since the application was filed and there is no sufficient justification for the said adjournments.
I have also looked at the provisions of law regarding the filing of Appeals against Revisional Orders under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act.
First I have failed to see the relevance of Order 48 r. 1 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules which is quoted as one of those under which the application is brought. That provision/Order is in respect of District Registries. This Court is not a District Registry so citing Order 48 r. 1 & 3 is irrelevant to this matter.
I also observe that under Section 76 of the Civil Procedure Act which regulates/governs Orders from which appeals line, an Order of this Court on Revision cannot be appealed against automatically within the provisions of Section 76 of the Civil Procedure Act.
If the Applicant wished to appeal against the decision of the Hon. Judge, then they had to apply for leave to appeal from this Court or from the Court of Appeal if this Court denied the said leave. This has not been done so the instant application is not properly before this Court.
There can be no application for Stay of execution pending a non- existent appeal. The said leave should have been under the provisions of Order 44 (3) and (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
All in all I find that this application is incompetent as it seeks a stay of execution pending a non-existent appeal.
It is struck out with costs to the Respondents. The Orders made on Revision in Misc. Cause 1/2006 are to be enforced accordingly.
Godfrey Namundi
Judge
12/6/2014
12/6/2014:
Applicant absent
Respondents present
Munulo for Respondents
Court: Ruling read in Court.
Godfrey Namundi
Judge
12/6/2014
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.