Umeme Limited v Rurihoona (Civil Application 213 of 2021) [2021] UGCA 218 (20 August 2021)

Full Case Text

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA Mrsc.ctvtL AppLtcATtoN No.213 0F 2021

(Arising hom Misc. Civil Application No. 212 of 2021) (Fufther arising from High Courl Civil Appeal No, 100 of 2011) (Also arising f rom Complaint EDT No. 1S of 2015) 10

## UMEME LIMITED APPLICANT VERSUS

RURIHOONA ELISAM RESPONDENT

## RULING OF THE COURT

This Application was brought by the applicant seeking for an lnterim Order of stay of execution pending determination of the main application for stay of execution pending disposal of the appeal.

- 20 The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr. Rogers Mugisha the Legal officer of the applicant company on 191812021 and a Supplementary Affidavit in support sworn by the Legal Officer on 261812021. - o The grounds of the application as stated in both the Notice of Motion apd the supporting affidavits are that there is imminent threat of execution by the respondent who is a judgment creditor in High court civil Appeal No. 100 of 20jT. Further, that the respondent has commenced execution by way of garnishee and attachment of the applicant's bank accounts held in ABSA Bank (U) Ltd and Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd respectively and has to that effect filed High court Miscellaneous Application N0.1148 of 2020 which was earlier stayed for purposes of hearing and determining the applicant's application for stay of execution at the High Court. 25

30 However, that upon the applicant's said application being heard and dismissed, the respondent has now written a letter to the High Court Clvil Division to have his Miscellaneous Application No.1 148 of 2020 fixed for hearing following which the Registrar, Civil Division has directed that the same be fixed for hearing on 10191202j.

At the hearing of this application, the applicant was represented by Mr. Kabayo Alex and Mr.

3s Vincent Lubang. There was no appearance for the respondent who was duly served through his counsel M/s Anguria & Co. Advocates.

Upon this Court satisfying itself that there was effective service, it ordered that the matter proceeds in the absence of the respondent under rule 56(2) of the Judicature (court of Appeal) Rules.

40 Counsel for the applicant then submitted that this application meets the 3 conditions for grant of interim order of stay of execution as set out in the case ol Zubeda Muhamed and another vs Laila Kaka walia & another, supreme court civil Reference No. 0T of 2016 (arising from Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2016), namely that;

(1) There is a competent notice of appeal.

(2) There is a substantive application

- (3) There is a serious threat of execution. - O ln regard to the first condition, counsel submitted that the applicant filed a Notice of Appeal on 231412020 and wrote a letter to the Registrar High Court at Civil Division on the same day requesting for certified copies of the record of proceedings and the judgment in High Court so Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2017 .

Further that, both the Notice of Appeal and the letter requesting for the certified copies of the record of proceedings were served on the respondent via email due to the Covid 19 pandemic lockdown in2020.

55 On the second condition, counsel submitted that the applicant filed a substantive application No. 212 of 2021 together with this application on 191812021and the same has not yet been fixed for hearing.

On the threat of execution which is the third condition, counsel alluded to the letter of the respondent to the High Court Civil Division which prompted direction that the High Court Miscellaneous Appllcation No. 1148 of 2020 be fixed for hearing on 101912021.

Counsel prayed that this Court flnds that the applicant has met all the conditions for grant of an interim order of stay of execution and grants the same. 60

I have considered the applicant's application and the supporting affidavits and the documents attached thereof. I have also read the authority provided which sets out the conditions for grant of interim order.

An interim order for stay of execution is granted pending the determination of a substantive application of stay of execution. The law is now settled that the three conditions submitted on by counsel for the applicant must be fulfilled by an applicant for an interim order of stay of execution to issue (See: Hwang Sung /ndusfries Ltd vs Tajdin Hussewa & others, SCCA No. 1 9 ol 2008; Hon. Theodore Ssek\*uubo E others vs The Aftorney General & others; Supreme Courl Constitutional Application No. 04 of 2014 and Zubeda Mohammed & another vs Laila Kaka Walia E another (supra)). 65 70 o

I note that in this case, there is a competent notice of appeal and a substantive application No. 212 of 2021. Having considered the arguments of counsel and the documents provided to prove that there is imminent threat of execution, I am satisfied that the applicant has met

all the conditions for grant of an interim order of stay of execution of the order and decree in High Court Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2017 .

ln the result, this application is granted and an interim order is accordingly issued to restrain the respondent, his servants, agents, a Garnishee or their agents/ servants or any person

80 acting on behalf of the respondent and or the Garnishee and all Banks holding the applicant's Bank accounts from executing and/or enforcing the orders in High court civil Appeal No. 100 of 2017 pending the determination of the substantive Application No. 212 of 2021 .

Idirect that Application No. 212 of 2021 be flxed and heard within the next 30 days from the date of this ruling which shall be the life span of this interim order. Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of that application.

8s I so order

Dated at Kampala tnis..29hay 0t... 2021

Hellen Obura JUSTICE OF APPEAL