Onyango & 4 Others v Odongo & 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application 79 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 1119 (27 December 2024)

# **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT KITGUM**

# **MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 079/2023**

## **(Formerly HIGH COURT GULU – MISC. APPLICATION No. 10/2023)**

# 5 **(COURT OF APPEAL - CIVIL APPEAL No. 486/2022)**

## **(ARISING FROM HIGH COURT CIVIL SUIT No. 07/2021)**

- **1. ONYANGO OLWENY GALDINO** - **2. OKENE COSMAS LUCER** - **3. LOTTO CHARLES** - 10 **4. ONGOM JAMES** - **5. OLOT CEASER LOKONOMOI APPLICANTS**

**Versus**

- **1. ODONGO MARINO** - **2. OKONO PETER** - 15 **3. OKELLO DAVID LOYEN** - **4. OLAA PETER** - **5. OKOT DAVID LIVINGSTONE** - **6. ACIRE JACKSON RESPONDENTS**

# **BEFORE HON. MR. JUSTICE PHILIP W. MWAKA.**

## 20 **RULING.**

## **Introduction and Background.**

[1]. The Applicants seeks Orders from this Court – firstly, for stay of execution of the Judgment and Decree in High Court Civil Suit (Gulu) No. 07/2021 pending determination of Civil Appeal No. 486/2022 before the Court of 25 Appeal and secondly, making provision for Costs.

- [2]. The Motion instituting the Application was filed on the 25 th January, 2023 about four (4) months after the Trial Court decision on 14th September, 2022. - [3]. The Application is instituted by way of Notice of Motion under **Section 33 (now S. 37) of the Judicature Act, Cap. 13 (now Cap. 16); Section 98 of** 30 **the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 71 (now Cap. 282); Order 43 Rules 4(3) and (5); Order 22 Rule 23 and Order 52 Rules 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, SI 71 - 1.** These citations were revised by the **Law Revision Act, Cap. 3 and Statutory Instrument No. 049/2024: The Law Revision (Commencement of the 7th Revised Edition) (Principal Laws)** 35 **Instrument, 2024.**

[4]. An Affidavit supporting the Application is attached deponed by the 1 st Applicant.

#### **The Applicants' Case.**

40 [5]. The Applicants' grounds in the Motion are: - They are dissatisfied with the entire Judgment and Decree in High Court Civil Suit No. 07/2021 delivered on the 14th September, 2022 and thereby instituted Civil Appeal No. 486/2022 in the Court of Appeal; there is imminent threat to execute and the Respondents are actively executing the Judgment and Decree in High Court 45 Civil Suit No. 07/2021 using Judicial and extra-Judicial means; the Appeal instituted No. 486/2022 raises legal questions for consideration and determination by the Court of Appeal (*prima facie* meritorious); there is sufficient cause for the Court to Order stay of execution of the Judgment and Decree pending disposal of the Appeal; the Applicants and their families are 50 in physical possession of and occupying the suit land now subject of Appeal on which they reside and derive sustenance and if this Application is not granted it will render more than four (4) clans with five hundred eighty nine (589) households and over two thousand eight hundred fifty four (2,854) people homeless and destitute thereby suffering substantial loss and damage.

- 55 [6]. The Applicants conclude by averring that the Application has been made without unreasonable delay and the Appeal will be rendered nugatory if the Application is not granted with the balance of convenience being in their favour since they are in possession and occupation of the land residing and deriving sustenance therefrom thus it being just and equitable that the 60 Application is granted. - [7]. The Court observes that there is in fact already filed in the Court of Appeal a Record of Appeal of the 2nd December, 2022 incorporating, *inter alia*, a Notice of Appeal and a Memorandum of Appeal. - [8]. In the supporting Affidavit, the Applicants said to be Clan leaders reiterate 65 the grounds already cited and expound to the effect that the Respondents are titling, alienating, surveying, placing mark stones and selling parts of the land to third parties while also destroying properties of the Applicants and their families including natural and planted trees which they are logging and using for making charcoal as well as destroying houses and gardens - thus giving 70 rise to hostilities. Several Annextures are attached including extracts of the Record filed in the Court of Appeal.

#### **The Respondents' Case.**

[9]. The Respondents filed an Affidavit in Reply deposed by the 3rd Respondent on the 11 75 th October, 2023 in opposition to the Application. The Respondents indicated in the Affidavit points of Law they intended to raise – specifically, firstly that the 1st Applicant did not have the authority of the other Applicants to depose the Affidavit supporting the Motion on their behalf and secondly, the 1 st Applicant did not have the authority to file the Application on behalf 80 of the four (4) clans mentioned and their members without the leave of Court – and as a result of these objections the Application should be struck out.

- [10]. The Court observes that the second objection mentioned in respect of the suit being the subject of a Representative Order is a fundamental matter raised in the Memorandum of Appeal constituting the first ground of Appeal. - 85 [11]. It would therefore best be addressed by the Appeal Court considering the merits of the Appeal and moreso because its origin is in respect of the manner in which the original suit subject of Appeal itself was instituted. - [12]. It is Respondents' averment that the existence of the Appeal filed is admitted; they have not filed a Bill of Costs in the matter and neither have 90 they applied for execution of the Decree or for that matter an eviction Order or even stopped or prevented or refused (prevented) any person on the suit land occupancy and, or use with each remaining on their respective portions as from the date of the Judgment and consequently the *status quo* is maintained; there is no threat of execution which claims are speculative and 95 ill intentioned; the deponent knows of no sale of land which is not proved and neither have they carried out survey of the land; and, it is not indicated that any alleged destruction of property was reported to the Uganda Police or has given rise to any prosecution for malicious damage to property. - [13]. Curiously, the Respondents urge that the Application is not granted with the 1 st, 3rd and 5 100 th Applicants having been found to be non-citizens and they **"strongly fear"** that they may alienate and, or dispose of large chunks of the suit land prior to determination of the Appeal and flee to their said ancestral homes in the Republic of South Sudan. - [14]. Regarding the photographs attached to the Affidavit in support of the Motion 105 (listed in groups collectively as Annexture **"E"** and Annexture **"F"** – which the Court observes are not duly Commissioned as Annextures under the Oaths Act), it is stated that they are of no evidential value and could have been taken by anybody and it is not indicated where or when they were taken. - [15]. In conclusion, the Respondents avers that it is just and equitable that the 110 Application is not granted and the Applicants will suffer no prejudice.

### **SUBMISSIONS.**

#### **The Respondents' Preliminary Objections on Points of Law.**

- [16]. Prior to the Applicants filing their Submissions on the 13th November, 2023; on the 23rd October, 2023, the Respondents filed Submissions raising 115 Preliminary Objections on Points of Law. The objections raised which the Court shall address are as follows: - - [17]. Firstly, the Application was brought under the wrong Law and by wrong procedure and is before the wrong Court - contending that Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain an Application for stay of execution in respect of a 120 matter before the Court of Appeal is not provided for since Jurisdiction is created by Law and never assumed. It is their case that **Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules** is in respect of Appeals to High Court and only applies to matters on Appeal before the High Court of which there is none but rather an Appeal to the Court of Appeal from the High Court. The Respondents 125 further contend that **Section 33 (now S. 37) of the Judicature Act** is only applicable for matters in which the High Court has Jurisdiction and not in the instant case where the parties are in the Court of Appeal. It is their submission that the Application should have been properly brought before the Court of Appeal under **Rule 6(2)(b) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules)**

# 130 **Directions, SI 13-10**.

- [18]. The second objection is that in filing this Application solely and without Co-Counsel jointly instructed in the matter Messrs. Kunihira & Co. Advocates whom represented the Applicants/Appellants in the High Court, Messrs. Okello Oryem & Co. Advocates acted illegally. It is their case citing *inter alia* 135 **Order 3 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules** on appearances that representation by Advocates is on the basis of written instructions and cannot be assumed in which case they submit that the Application should be struck - off for offending the requirement of Lawful representation by Advocates.

[19]. The third objection citing **Order 1 Rules 10(2) and 13 of the Civil**

- 140 **Procedure Rules** is that the Applicants' supporting Affidavit is incompetent for having been deposing on behalf of other Applicants and for persons at large without attaching written authority from them to do so. - [20]. It is on the basis of these objections that the Respondents pray that the Application is struck out. - 145

#### **The Applicants' Response to the Points of Law and Submissions.**

- [21]. The Applicants filed Submissions on the 13th November, 2023 in which they first responded to the objections raised as follows – - [22]. It is their initial contention that the objections were raised without leave of 150 Court but nonetheless they firstly submit in reply that both **Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act** and **Section 33 (now S. 37) Judicature Act** apply to all Courts in Uganda adding that the Sections cited accord the High Court Inherent Jurisdiction to entertain all matters with exception of Appeals. - [23]. The Applicants cite *inter alia* **Rule 42(1) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal** 155 **Rules) Directions** and submit that an Application for stay of execution arising from an Appeal from a decision of the High Court must first be made to the High Court which issued the Decree with such Court best suited to determine its grant, or not, without delay having more Judges countrywide. - [24]. It is observed that both the High Courts and the Court of Appeal have 160 concurrent Jurisdiction in respect of stay of execution. - [25]. Secondly, the Applicants submit that the Respondents' claims that no instructions were given to Messrs. Okello Oryem & Co. Advocates is absurd, without merit and a submission from the bar being unprofessional and unfair. It is a question of fact and evidence of no instructions being given must be 165 produced. The Court must look at evidence on Record. The Respondents reference the Affidavit of the 1st Applicant supporting the Motion to be included as proof of their instructions.

- [26]. Thirdly, the Applicants submit in response to the objection that authorization was not obtained to depose the Affidavit supporting the Motion, that the 1st 170 Applicant's Affidavit supports his own case and is competent and where parties are in litigation in respect of the same subject matter a single supporting Affidavit of an Applicant will suffice for the Application to proceed since there is no legal requirement for each Applicant to depose an Affidavit. - 175 **See: Misc. Application No. 199/2015: Ssembatya Bumbakali & Anor Vs. Eco Petro (U) Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 62/2013: Okurut Joseph & Others Vs. New Bubajjwe Primary School & Anor, Camille Vs. Meralli [1966] EA 411.** - [27]. In sum, the Applicants pray that the points of objections are overruled.

### **The Applicants' Submissions.**

- [28]. In addressing the merits of the Application, the Applicants cited *inter alia* **Supreme Court Constitutional Application No. 06/2013: Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & 3 Others Vs. The Attorney General & 4 Others** - 185 for principles applicable in an Application for stay of execution (in both the High Court and Superior Courts) including: - (1). The Appeal must have a likelihood of success or *prima facie* case on Appeal. (2). The Applicant is likely to suffer irreparable damage (or substantial loss). (3). If 1 and 2 are not established, the Court must consider the balance of convenience. (4). The 190 Application must be instituted without delay. - [29]. The Applicants submitted that the principles stated in **Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules** for grant of stay of execution are the same as in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal – with the added considerations that security for performance of the Decree or Order is to be given and that an 195 Appeal must not be rendered nugatory by the failure to grant a stay of execution.

[30]. In addressing the merits and the Issue raised – Whether there are grounds for grant of stay of execution of the Decree of the High Court, the Applicants contend that – firstly, the Appeal raises serious grounds for Judicial 200 consideration and on the face of it is *prima face* meritorious with high chances of success making reference to the grounds of Appeal contained in the Memorandum of Appeal – which they contend was not denied by the Respondents.

[31]. Secondly, the Application was brought without unreasonable delay - filing in 205 January, 2023 following the Judgment/Decree in September, 2022 said to be as soon as execution commenced.

- [32]. Thirdly, the balance of convenience favours the Applicants whom are in physical possession and occupation of the suit land where they reside and derive sustenance. It is their case that the land is vast Clan land with numerous 210 households and persons and the *status quo* should be maintained pending determination of the Appeal. They highlight the Respondents averments that the disputing parties and their Clans are on their respective sides of the disputed land with no attempts at execution, suggesting then that the *status quo* is maintained. But again also claiming extra Judicial execution as earlier 215 outlined herein-above. - [33]. It is their prayer that the Application is allowed with costs. - [34]. In respect of the Respondents' claims that the Applicants did not obtain leave to file suit on behalf of other affected persons, the Applicants further contend that the objection is misconceived in as far as the affected persons mentioned 220 are family members on the land and regarding execution proceedings the Applicants insists that it is ongoing and contest the provisions of the Respondents' Affidavit which they claim is argumentative - and ought to be severed – later claiming it is a simple denial without a substantive response and adding that the Respondents will not suffer any prejudice.

## **Rejoinder – Respondents.**

- [35]. On the 17th November, 2023, a **"Rejoinder"** was filed by the Respondents in response to the Applicants' Reply to the Preliminary Points of Law. The Respondents substantially reiterate their earlier arguments already outlined 230 herein-above. - [36]. An additional consideration is their argument citing **Misc. Application No. 180/2022 (Soroti): Obwatan John Steven Vs. Wakholi James & Others** to the effect that illegalities encountered with no pending or existing application filed in furtherance of execution of a Decree or Order are best 235 resolved by the Police or Local Authorities. Otherwise execution of a Decree or Order is evidenced by instituting the relevant Application in Court for such execution. - [37]. The Respondents did not rejoin on their earlier second and third objections. **Rejoinder – Applicants.** - [38]. The Applicants not to be outdone also filed a **"Rejoinder"** on the 15 240 th April, 2024. - [39]. Besides protesting the Respondents' rejoinder an additional argument was that the Judgment is self-executing and that in such an application for stay of execution to the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal one needn't establish that - 245 they have taken formal steps in applying for execution. The core consideration is that the Appeal is not rendered nugatory.

# **Representation.**

- [40]. Counsel, Mr. Omoloi Ivan and later Mr. Okware Meshack, represented the Applicants. The Applicants were all present in Court. - 250 [41]. Counsel, Mr. Oyet Silver Okeny, represented the Respondents. The Respondents were all present in Court.

### **Proceedings of the Court.**

[42]. The proceedings of the Court were on the 13th June, 2024 and 30th August, 2024.

## 255 **Issues for Consideration.**

[43]. The Issues for consideration to be addressed by the Court are - **Whether the Application is properly before the Court and Whether the Applicants have established sufficient cause for the Court to Judiciously exercise its discretion and grant an Order for stay of execution of the Judgment** 260 **and Decree in High Court Civil Suit No. 07/2021.**

# **Considerations and Determination of the Court.**

- [44]. The Court observes that the Application is premised on multiple provisions of the **Civil Procedure Rules** which provide for stay of execution with each applicable in its own circumstances and those cited in the title include – **Order** 265 **22 Rule 23** and **Order 43 Rules 4(3) and (5)**. This would seem to suggest a degree of uncertainty in respect of the proper Rule(s) Applicable in the - circumstances of this case which is based on an Appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decision of the High Court exercising its common Jurisdiction and arising from an ordinary suit. This may best be addressed by elimination. - 270 [45]. **Order 22 Rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules,** cited by the Applicants, the context of which is execution of Decrees and Orders and when Court may stay execution provides in **Sub Rule (1)** -

**"The Court to which a decree has been sent for execution shall, upon sufficient cause being shown, stay the execution of the decree for a** 275 **reasonable time to enable the Judgment Debtor to apply to the Court by which the decree was passed, or to any Court having Appellate Jurisdiction in respect of the decree or the execution of the decree, for an order to stay the execution, or for any other order relating to the decree or execution which might have been made by the Court of first** 280 **instance, or Appellate Court if execution has been issued by the Appellate Court or if Application for execution has been made to it."**

- [46]. This would be pertinent where there has been a transfer of a Decree from a Court to another for purposes of execution and the exercise of which is generally vested in the Court recipient of the transferred Decree – which does 285 not arise in the circumstances of this Application. In any case, an Application under **Order 22 Rule 23(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules** is by Chamber Summons as opposed to the Notice of Motion filed herein. **See: Order 22 Rule 89(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules**. This is eliminated. - [47]. **Order 43 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules,** cited by the Applicants, the 290 context of which is Appeals to the High Court and stay by the High Court provides in **Sub Rule (1)** –

**"An Appeal to the High Court shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the High Court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of** 295 **an appeal having been preferred from the decree; but the High Court may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of the decree."**

- [48]. This would be pertinent where there is an Appeal from a Lower Court to the High Court – which similarly does not arise in the circumstances of this Application which is untenable under **Sub Rule (1)**. - 300 **See: High Court Misc. Application No. 270/2024: Kantinti E. Mbaziira Vs. Lumala Moses**, **High Court Misc. Application No. 160/2022: Ejulu Martin Vs. Itobu Margret and Misc. Application No. 02/2024 (Kitgum): Ayee-Too David Mutesa Vs. Abonga Yusamo & Anor.** - [49]. However, it is acknowledged that the general considerations provided in 305 **Order 43 Sub Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules** are instructive across the respective Courts in considering grounds in applications for grant of stay of execution and determining what amounts to sufficient cause in an application for stay of execution for a Court to judiciously exercise its discretion and grant such an application. It is observed that the provision is 310 commonly cited as reference.

11 | P a g e

[50]. Perhaps indicative of the general uncertainty in the Law applicable in seeking stay of execution by the High Court pending an Appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Respondents suggests that this application should have been instituted in the Court of Appeal under the provisions of **Rule 6(2)(b) of the**

- 315 **Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10**. - [51]. This would be to disregard or ignore **Rule 42(1) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions** and the concurrent Jurisdiction of both the High Court and Court of Appeal in matters of stay of execution with the requirement that the application is first made to the High Court – save for the 320 allowance given for exceptional circumstances, which do not arise here. - [52]. Thus, without definitive provision, the matter of stay of execution herein is left to the discretion of the Court to be exercised judiciously under **Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act** in conjunction with authority granted to the Court to provide appropriate remedies by **Section 37** (formerly Section 33) - 325 **of the Judicature Act.** These are both cited by the Applicants in the Motion. [53]. The Court finds that inspite of the omnibus manner in which the Applicants cited the Law applicable and which is not fatal, this Application is properly before it and the first preliminary objection to the effect that the Court has

no jurisdiction in this matter and that the matter was instituted under the

### 330 wrong Law and procedure is overruled.

# **See: Saggu Vs. Road Master Cycles (U) Ltd [2002] 1 EA 258.**

- [54]. In regard to the second objection to the effect that the Law Firm which filed the Application is not duly instructed, the Court can only observe that this is not substantiated by the Respondents and is in the nature of speculation and 335 conjecture by the Respondents. No concern has been raised by the parties directly affected. The objection is accordingly overruled. - [55]. The third objection raised by the Respondent is to the effect that the Affidavit in support of the Application is incompetent on the basis that the deponent, 1 st Applicant, did not obtain authority of the other Applicants or persons.

12 | P a g e

- [56]. The Court finds that the 1 340 st Applicant was not barred from deposing the Affidavit supporting the Motion in his own right and, or as a party to the litigation proceedings in the Lower Trial Court of which he claimed an interest in the subject matter. The authorities cited by the Applicants are persuasive. - **See: Misc. Application No. 199/2015: Ssembatya Bumbakali & Anor Vs.** 345 **Eco Petor (U) Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 62/2013: Okurut Joseph & Others Vs. New Bubajjwe Primary School & Anor, Camille Vs. Meralli [1966] EA 411.** - [57]. Upon the foregoing considerations, the Court overrules the preliminary points of Law raised by the Respondents and shall now proceed to consider 350 the substance and merits of the Application. - [58]. The grounds on which a Court may judiciously exercise its discretion in granting a stay of execution are well established and outlined herein-above. **See: Supreme Court Constitutional Application No. 06/2013: Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & 3 Others Vs. The Attorney General & 4 Others**, 355 **Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18/1990: Lawrence Musitwa Kyazze Vs. Eunice Busingye** and **CACA No. 341/2013: Kyambogo University Vs. Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege.** - [59]. It is not disputed that the Applicants have already instituted an Appeal in the Court of Appeal. This is evidenced by the Record of Appeal on the Record 360 of the Court constituted by *inter alia* the Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal filed in the Court of Appeal as well as by the evidence provided to establish that the matter was scheduled for Conferencing. This first ground is not contentious and is accordingly established. - [60]. The second ground regarding the likelihood of the Appeal being successful 365 or being *prima facie* arguable is not contentious either. Considering the scheduling of the Conferencing of the Appeal having been set and further having perused the Memorandum of Appeal, the Court finds that *prima facie* arguable grounds in the Appeal are duly established, including ownership.

13 | P a g e

- [61]. The third ground for consideration is in respect of irreparable injury or 370 substantial loss being occasioned to the Applicants should the stay of execution not be granted. The core contention advanced by the Respondents in rebuttal of this ground is that inspite of being the successful litigants at the Trial they have not taken any formal or for that matter affirmative steps to execute the Judgment and Decree entered two (2) years earlier on the 14 th 375 September, 2022 by filing an Application for execution and as such no imminent threat of execution exists. The Court accepts this argument. The Applicants counter by claiming that the execution is happening by *"extrajudicial"* means including logging and charcoal burning as well as destruction of gardens – which is not specified. No cogent or admissible evidence of 380 survey, titling and, or sales of the suit land is provided. The Court accepts the argument by the Respondents that the claimed *"extra-Judicial"* activities are best resolved by the Police and or Local Authorities. It is therefore the finding of the Court that the Applicants have not established an imminent threat of execution which may result in irreparable injury or substantial loss to them. - 385 [62]. The fourth ground to be considered related to the third ground is whether in not granting a stay of execution the Appeal will be rendered nugatory. The core contention in the litigation determined in the Judgment in the High Court is the ownership and as a consequence possession of the suit land described as customary land said to belong to Clans. This is similarly the 390 subject matter of the Appeal. It has not been established that affirmative steps have been taken by the Respondents in enforcing removal of any of the affected persons from the suit land or that any determination of the Court of Appeal would be rendered nugatory. Upon determination by the Court of Appeal or in the event any further Appeal the same circumstances will pertain 395 in respect of which the ultimately successful party will be well placed to enforce the final decision of the Court. There's no *"irreversible change"* observed or established in respect of the *Status Quo*. Accordingly, this ground fails.

- The fifth ground in respect of the Application having been instituted without $[63]$ . unnecessary delay is resolved in favour of the Applicants with the Application having been filed on the 25<sup>th</sup> January, 2023 within three (3) months of the 400 Judgment on the 14<sup>th</sup> September, 2022. Also, the Record of Appeal has already been filed with the matter having been set for Scheduling Conference. - The sixth and last consideration would be the balance of convenience. This $[64]$ . consideration is redundant in the circumstances with the Court having already determined that the Application was prematurely filed with no formal or 405 affirmative steps in pursuit of execution having been taken by the Respondents as the successful party and therefore no imminent or serious threat of execution or risk of irreparable injury or risk of substantial loss apparent – most especially almost two (2) years after the Judgment was delivered and the Decree issued. 410 - [65]. In sum, based on the determinations on the merits of the Application hereinabove, the Court finds that the Applicants have not established sufficient cause for the Court to judiciously exercise its discretion and grant the Application. The Application is accordingly dismissed. - [66]. Having carefully given due consideration to the Application, the supporting 415 Affidavit(s), the responsive Affidavit(s), the Annextures, the respective $\frac{1}{2}$ Submissions filed, the Law applicable and the circumstances of the case, the Application is dismissed. - [67]. Each Party shall meet their own costs.

# 420

# **Orders of the Court.**

- [68]. Accordingly, the Court makes the following Orders: - - 1. **Miscellaneous Application No. 079/2023** is dismissed. - 2. Each Party shall bear their own costs. - It is so Ordered. 425

**Signed and Dated on the 27th day of December, 2024 at High Court Kitgum Circuit.**

**Philip W. Mwaka**

430 **Acting Judge of the High Court.**

# **Delivery and Attendance.**

This signed and dated Ruling has on the directions of the Presiding Judge been delivered to the Parties electronically by the Deputy Registrar, High Court Kitgum

435 Circuit.

- 1. Deputy Registrar, - High Court Kitgum Circuit Her Worship Suzanne Aisia Musooli. - 2. Counsel for the Applicants Mr. Omoloi Ivan & Mr. Okware Meshack. - 3. The 1 st – 5 th Applicants - 440 4. Counsel for the Respondents Mr. Oyet Silver Okeny. - 5. 1 st – 5 th Respondents - 6. Court Clerk and Interpreter Mr. Atube Michael. - 7. Interested and Affected Persons and Entities.

445 **Philip W. Mwaka**

**Acting Judge of the High Court.**

**Kitgum High Court Circuit.**

**27th day of December, 2024.**