Download

Uganda Judgment

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

N iwagaba & 4ors v The owners of condominium plan no. 0026 & 0029 (Miscellaneous Application No. 336 of 2013) [2013] UGHCCD 95 (16 July 2013)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the Applicants faced a pending eviction, which, if executed during court vacation, would irreversibly alter the status quo and prejudice the pending appeal. The urgency was established by the threat of eviction and the existence of applications for interim orders and stay of execution. The court determined that these circumstances warranted the issuance of a Certificate of Urgency to allow the matter to be heard during court vacation, in line with the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules and the inherent powers of the court to prevent irreparable harm and ensure justice.

Court disposition

certificate_of_urgency_granted

Orders

  • A Certificate of Urgency is issued to enable the court to entertain the matter during court vacation.

02

Material facts

Parties

Arthur Niwagaba

Applicant Counsel: Dalton Opwonya

Vida Tinzaara

Applicant Counsel: Dalton Opwonya

Leon Maiku

Applicant Counsel: Dalton Opwonya

Joseph Turyahikayo

Applicant Counsel: Dalton Opwonya

Rose Timbigamba

Applicant Counsel: Dalton Opwonya

The Owners of Condominium Plan Nos. 0026 and 0029

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Application for Certificate of Urgency

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Counsel for the Applicants argued that the status quo would be drastically changed after court vacation if the application for stay of execution and interim order is not heard urgently. The Applicants are threatened with eviction from shops they have occupied for a long time, and failure to hear the matter during vacation would result in irreparable damage.
Respondent
The Respondents did not file a formal response to this application. The court noted the existence of an eviction order and the absence of evidence of demolition, but no substantive arguments from the Respondents were recorded.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules, rule 3

    Court may entertain civil matters during vacation if, in the opinion of the presiding Judge, they are of an urgent nature.

  2. 02

    Section 98, Civil Procedure Act

    Court has inherent powers to make orders necessary for the ends of justice.

  3. 03

    Article 50, Constitution of Uganda

    Citizens are entitled to redress and may appeal decisions of court.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the Applicants faced a pending eviction, which, if executed during court vacation, would irreversibly alter the status quo and prejudice the pending appeal. The urgency was established by the threat of eviction and the existence of applications for interim orders and stay of execution. The court determined that these circumstances warranted the issuance of a Certificate of Urgency to allow the matter to be heard during court vacation, in line with the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules and the inherent powers of the court to prevent irreparable harm and ensure justice.

Obiter and limits

  • The court did not find evidence of demolition as alleged by counsel, and cautioned against giving evidence from the Bar.
  • Only criminal matters are ordinarily heard during court vacation, but civil matters of urgent nature may be entertained at the discretion of the presiding Judge.

Court disposition

certificate_of_urgency_granted

  • A Certificate of Urgency is issued to enable the court to entertain the matter during court vacation.

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.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Judgment

[2013] UGHCCD 95

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA - NAKAWA CIRCUIT

Miscellaneous Application No. 336 of 2013)

(Arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 226 of 2013)

(Arising from Civil Appeal No. 053 of 2013)

(Arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2013)

(Arising out of Miscellaneous Application No. 589 of 2009)

(Itself arising from Civil Suit No. 0287 of 2009)

1. Arthur Niwagaba 2. Vida Tinzaara 3. Leon Maiku 4. Joseph Turyahikayo 5. Rose Timbigamba :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANTS

V E R S U S

The Owners of Condominium Plan

Nos. 0026 and 0029 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENTS

Before: Hon. Lady Justice Elizabeth Ibanda Nahamya

RULING

This is an Application brought under Article 50 of the Constitution, Ss. 48 (1) (d) Judicature Act & 98 of the Civil Procedure Act; 050, r1 Civil Procedure Rules. The said Application is supported by an Affidavit deponed by Rose Tibigambwa (5th Applicant) and is dated 15th July 2013.

The main reason for the Application is for a Certificate of Urgency to be issued to enable Court sit and entertain Miscellaneous Application No. 324 of 2013. The major ground stated in the Notice of Motion is that “the status quo will have drastically changed after Court vacation in that if the Application filed by the Applicants/Defendants is not expeditiously heard in Court Vacation, the Applicants/Defendants will suffer irreparable damage.

During the hearing of this Application, Counsel Opwonya referred me to the already filed Application for Interim Order (Miscellaneous Application No. 324 of 2013), particularly paragraph 3 of the supporting Affidavit thereof which is on the mother file. He stated that the Plaintiffs want to destroy some shops which Defendants had occupied for long.

Ideally, as per Article 50 of the Constitution of Uganda, a citizen is entitled to redress and any person aggrieved by any decision of Court may Appeal to the appropriate Court. The Applicant/Defendants have already filed a Civil Appeal No. 053 of 2013 which awaits to be heard, but is yet to be scheduled for hearing S. 98 Civil Procedure Act refers to the inherent Powers of Court to make Orders that are necessary for the ends for justice. Pursuant to rule 3 of the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules the Court Vacation runs from 15th July to 15th August. This means that only criminal matters shall be heard and Civil business which “in the opinion of the presiding Judge, shall be of an urgent nature” I have considered the submission of Mr. Opwonya and read the Affidavit of Rose Timbigamba. I have also seen an Eviction Order dated 12th July 2013 in which the Plaintiffs have notified the Defendants to give vacant possession to the Plaintiff who is the Decree Holder. Considering also the fact that Counsel Opwonya has shown Court the second Applications, namely one for an Interim Order and the other for stay of execution. The Applications numbered Miscellaneous Application No. 324 (for Interim Order) and Miscellaneous Application No. 226 for an Order that execution be stayed pending Appeal which I have perused and do confirm their existence. The Affidavits in support do allude to the fact that the Applicants have been threatened with eviction. I did not, however find any evidence of demolition as Counsel Opwonya submitted, which in my view would be tantamount to giving evidence for the Bar. Nonetheless, a pending eviction exists and if carried out can, in my opinion, drastically change the Status quo so as to affect the pending Appeal.

I am convinced that this is a good reason and befitting matter for the issuance of a Certificate of Urgency.

I hereby GRANT the Applicant’s prayer and ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF URGENCY to enable this Court to entertain the matter during Court Vacation.

Signed:..............................................................

Hon. Lady Justice Elizabeth Ibanda Nahamya

J U D G E

16th July 2013

Present:

Counsel for the Applicants/Defendants: Dalton Opwonya

Fourth Applicant – Joseph Turyahikayo

Court Clerk: Olivia Nassuna

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Article 50, Constitution of Uganda

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 98, Civil Procedure Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 48(1)(d), Judicature Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Order 50, rule 1, Civil Procedure Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules, rule 3

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.