Sewamala v Bembe & 6 Ors (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2014) [1993] UGHCCD 6 (12 October 1993)

with viguou tom. each noided to act out whit t at average I

sit is abroam. Lie THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA offer a stippen

Provisions of Order & rule } of Civil irotedure Acley which

COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN IN THE HIGH $AT$

MISC. APPLICATION NO.23 OF 1992

... timera to vata - ...

ANGEL SEWAMALA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: of anitsion such $\mathbf{E} \cdot \mathbf{R} \cdot \mathbf{S}$ ; $\mathbf{U} \cdot \mathbf{S}$ faid vs cosm such to we twon

Order 39 mile 4(4) or Civil Procedure Males under which

4. ALEX BEMBE $\delta$ 2. JOHN ODWORI $\mathcal{O} = \mathcal{O}$ dal dem Fabrour sorii centi do 3. DAVID OCHWO T. $\downarrow$ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 4. VICENT EPUSI see to all begrows tomas at him beyroomens 5. E. OMOIT er wit 🚺 etace dir beseinnib at moitseliges edt 6. G. MUDAWE 7. ALEX ONYANGO error and on benneital even benneital even bennet and benneital betseuper feanwor it alt fur auktrea amen uit moewled makbreg

$\{2\ldots, 2\}, \qquad \mathbb{R}^n \subset \mathbb{R}^n.$

BEFORE:- THE HON. MR. JUSTICE C. M. KATO

benit ad Laedge R. U. L. I N. G. I .elgoeg essa edi gaiviovni for head as possible in order as possible in order as

revolver

This is an application by the applicant Angel Sewamala. The application is by notice of motion dated $26/11/92$ . It is supported by two affidavits one sworm by Mukasa the applicant's counsel dated 30/9/93 and another one sworn by one Serwanga dated $17/11/92$ . By this application the applicant is asking this court to review or set aside the order of the chief magistrate which granted stay of execution.

gained al Laegas as to it at suru of of frow Trail axet T

Review of Orders is governed by Order 42 of Civil Procedure Rules. By Provisions of Order 42 rules 2 and 4 of Civil Procedure Rules, an application for review must be presented to the judge who granted the order or decree which is the subject of the review. In the present case I did not make the order which is the subject of this application. I am not sure of the reasons which stopped the applicant from appealing against the decision of the chief magistrate or why the matter was not passed to this court for revisional order instead of a review.

$...$ /2

I observe that this notice of motion does not comply with Provisions of Order 48 rule 3 of Civil Procedure Rules which require a notice of motion to state general grounds of the application. In this application no ground of the application was stated in the notice of motion, that was a serious omission which rendered the application incurably defective.

$\mathcal{L}$

Order 39 rule $4(4)$ of Civil Procedure Rules under which this application was brought does not deal with setting aside or review of orders made by District Registrars relating to stay of execution. SEMME NELLA . >

On those three grounds I must, with due respect, agree with Mr. Mutyabule's contention that this application is misconceived and it cannot succeed. In these circumstances the application is dismissed with costs to the respondents. E. G. MUDAVI

Both counsel have informed me that there is an appeal. pending between the same parties and the two counsel requested me to make an order for an early hearing of that appeal. I take their word to be true, in that an appeal is pending. involving the same people. I order that the appeal be fixed for hearing as soon as possible in case it is ready for such hearing so I order. Iggs sit yd nobiesiggs as at ainT

The application is by notice of motion dated $26/11/92$ . It is supported by two efficivits one aworm by Mukaa the applicant's coursel data 30/9/93 and unother one sworn by<br>one Serwanga dated 17/19/19. By this application the applicant ent ic mebro ent ebres tee no C. M. KATO troo and gardes at . noitwooke To vate J. U. D. G. E. which are in the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state $12/10/93$

Review of Orders is governed by Order 12 of Civil Procedure Rules. By Provisions of Order 42 rules 2 and 4 of Civil Procedure egit2/10/93 DeLater at 11.30 A. M. ver roi mortesilges ... as full who art to toolder or decree which is the subject of the review. too COURT: The court is as before. Dif I asso trasarg ent nI beqqota doin'w Ruling is delivered for res I thoitsoileas and to the employees from appealing against the deviator of the onisi magistrate or why the matter was not passed to this court for .weiver a to Dectami rebus Lunciaiver

> C. M. KATO JUDGE $12/10/93$