Since this was an interim application, and the type or mode of security is not specified in the law, I am of the view that an undertaking to furnish security in the main application can su ffice since ultimately it is the Judge to consider what would amount to sufficient security.1. He only mentioned it in the main application. Dagira says the respondent deponed that he was prepared to furnish security for the due performance in the interim application, I have not seen that undertaking. I however note that the respondent here in in his affidavit in support did not provide security as required. She did not consider c appropriately for no mention was made of security for the due performance of the decree as may ultimately be binding on the respondent. After reading the ruling of the registrar, I am convinced that she considered O.43 r.4 (3) a, and b. He/she need s not do a detailed probe lest he/she oversteps his/her jurisdiction. In my view however, the registrar’s order not being a final order, consideration of the registrar of these conditions should be prima facie only. These are conditions precedent to the grant of stay of execution or interim stay of execution. 20 OF 2002 (SC) KANYEIHAMBA JSC (then) held inter alia that, The supreme court of Uganda was of the same view earlier on. An interim order is equitable remedy given f or the ends of justice. In my view it would be just and equitable that the matter is handled by the registrar as a civil court so that an interim order of stay is given to prevent destruction of the status quo before the hearing of the application by the judge or the appeal. But as was held in Busonya Jamada & Ors supra what if a judge is not readily available to hear the application. 18 of 1990 S.C., an application for a stay should be made informally to the judge who decided the case when judgment is delivered. The jurisdiction stems from S.101 (now S.98 CPA) which preserves the inherent power of the court.Īccording to LAWRENCE MUSIIT W A KYAZZE AND EUNICE BUSINGYE CIVIL APPLN. The High Court has jurisdiction to hear an application for stay of exec u tion pendin g appeal. NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION CA 13 OF 1984 supports the fact that a registrar can order an interim stay to prevent rendering a pending appeal nugatory. Īs rightly submitted by learned counsel for the respondent the more recent case of MUGENYI & CO. Today a status quo can easily be desecrated. It appears people today behave differently from those of 1932.
The situation of 1932 can no longer be appropriately compared to today’s situation where society appears to do and perceive things differently. This is understandable because circumstances under which the people of 1932 operated have tremendously changed with time. But this decision of the last century has been overtaken by more recent decisions including those of our Supreme Court. Bhagwanji Sunderji & Co 5 ULR 9 which held that interlocutory applications referred to in O.50 r.3 CPR are those preliminary to the hearing of a case and not when a decree has been passed by a judge. He is more persuaded by the 1932 decision in Dhanji v. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that accordi ng to him the decision in Busony a Jamada & Others v. I held that the Registrar has powers to issue interim orders for stay of execution of a final decree by a judge. One of the main issues of contention like in the instant case is whether a Registrar has powers to grant an interim stay of execution of a final decree by a judge. application 135/2009 the issues similar to those raised in the instant application came up for decision by this court. I have related the same to the law applicable. I have taken into account the respective submissions by learned counsel for the parties.
I have considered this application as a whole. That the order of the Assistant Registrar was legal and valid and it did not cause any miscarriage of justice but was intended to preserve the status quo.
That the registrar had jurisdiction to issue an interim order HORIZON COACHES LIMITED VS PAN AFRICA INSURANCE LIMITED CIVIL APPLN.
That where a Notice of Appeal or an application or indeed an appeal is pending before an appellate court it is right and proper that an interim order for stay of execution either in the High Court or in any other court be granted in the interest of justice and prevent the proceedings which are pending being rendered nugatory. T he purpose of the application for an interim order of stay was to protect the main application which is pending. Kituuma Magala further submitted that the jurisdictio n of the High Court stems from S.
0 kommentar(er)
