Kiiza v Emojong (Civil Application 130 of 2024) [2024] UGCA 220 (21 August 2024)

THE IIEPUBLIC OF UGANDA t N ]'UE C',()t [t't' ()t' A l't,li^t, o]' t-j(;AN l)A A'l' KAM I,ALA (,]vil, At,PLI(i^'t'toN NO. t-10 ()I, 202{ (.,1ri.ring.li ottt ,lli.;r'. ,.l l4tlictrtiott ,\'o. 160 o/ )02 I t .1,\7) (,lt i:ing /i'ont I I("l -03-c't'-t'u-0U5 tr/ 2023 1 (1ri:;ing lntm llu.ttrga Alugislt'dtt ('()url ('ivil ,\ttit Ntt. )6 o/ 20lt)1 lll: lWlrl:N K t 17..\ s.\\\ t .\t,t,l.l(.\\'l' VllltSt rS t,.\t( ).t()\( ; .t()t I \ t{ l.tst,( )\ l)t..\'l Itut.tN(; ot' Cr I llISl'oPl I llR (;ASl I Ilt^llAK Ii, .lA stN(;t.Ii,tt]s'l'lcll I | 'l'his application was brought undcr llulcs 6(2) and 43 ol- thc Judicaturc (Courl o1'Appcal) llulcs SI l3- I 0, Ibr Ordcrs that; u) ,ln order doth issuc./br u slu)'of excc'ulion ol thc.lutlgnrcnl uttd l xLtlion cntcrcd hy Ilon Dr. .lu:;tic'a l4/in/ied N Nuhisinde.iudge ol the tligh ('ourl of llgantlu ut .linju on thc 2lltt' du), ol lpril 2023 pcnding thrt hcuring and dalcrminalion rt/ lhe ,,1p1 it'tutl 's ,1ppeal. h) ('osts of thc upplicution bc prorilad.fitr. 2l 'l'hc application is prcnriscd on thc grounds as: u)'l hul lhc upplic'unt v'us sucd h1'lha ra.spontlenl ridc ('iril Suil No. 26 rl 2022 in tha ('hic/ Mogistutcs ('ourl ol Mu1'uga, vhareulxtn lha 1l lntroduclion opplice1t lo:;t tha cusa und being dissatislied uppliad uguinst thc ludgmant, ordcr.s. und dcu'tc ol lhe courl in lhc high uturt ul .liniu. h)'l hut thc upplit'unt haing dissulislicd vil11 thc .i dgtnanl antl ortlcr.s of rhe .first oppallunt court fidc ll('7'-03-('l'-(',1 NO.005 Ol" 2022./iled tt :ictond ttltltu in the ('ourt o/ ,4ppcul. c)'l'futl thc ultpLul bc/brc lhc c(n ol uppeal i.t tntriltsrious, hus u higlt c'hunt'e ol :;ut'c'css und the sumc is rtol .fiirrtlous. d) l'hut the upplicunt uppliad in thc high cnurt o/ Ugunda ot .Jitia.lbr u :;luy'rl eraculion us dirctlad hy tht ('tsurt ol .41tpcul llulas hut thc .t d nt c u' u.\ d i :; m i s "' c d. t) lt rt'tnrld bc in tha intcrest of sub.stuntive .iusliL'c und equit) i/ thi:' l lorrouruhlc ('ourl grunl.\ ordcrs fisr u .slttY ol cxccttlion becuuse lhilura to do :;o rill ratrdar ('ourl ttl .,lp1ruul ('ivil tlppeul No. 0521 o1 2023 panding hclisre tha ('ourl o/ lp1tcul ol []guntlu nuxulorl /) 'l hur the ,4ppeul :;hull he randeraLl nugatory i.f thc ordar .fir stul' ol cxcLut ion i.t ru gronlcd. g)'l'hul this ,.l1llplicution vus hrttughl without ltluv. 3 | 'l'hc application was opposcd hy an allidavit sworn by Mr. limojong John on grounds that this application is incompctcnt, misconccivcd, lacks mcrit, and ought to bc dismisscd with cosLs to thc rcspondcnt. ll,cprcscntation 4l Mr. Itobcrt Muhcrcza rcprcscntcd thc Applicant. 'l'hc Applicant was not irr (loult. Mr. Kycyago Iidrvarcl rcprcsclttcd thc Ilcspondcttl. 'l hc pallics ll lcd writtcn subnr issions. Su bnrissions firr thc Applicant 5 | Counscl Ibr thc Applicant subrrittcd that thc issttc to bc dctcrrnincd by this Courl wils to cslablish whctl-rcr thcrc is sulllcicnt causc lor this 2l llonourablc Courl to issuc an Ordcr lirr Stay ol' l:xccution. Counscl argucd tl.rat thc Applicanl has provcd that thcrc is a substantivc application bclbrc this Coun. On thc inrrnincnt thrcat lionr thc Itcspondcnt. counscl submittcd that thc Applicant is living or.rt ol'his hornc as an arrcst warranl rvas issr.rcd by Mayugc l)olicc Station to arrcst hirn. Counscl argucd Iurthcr that thcrc is a substantivc Appcal viclc Civil Appcal No.306 ol'2023 that has a high chancc ol'sltcccss. 6 | It was argucd lurthcr tliat thcrc was no clclay. A Noticc ol' Appcal was Illed in thc Iligh Court ol'.linja at Jinja on thc 'ud ol May 2023 and a Mcr-norandurrr ot'Appcal was Illcd in this honoulablc Court orr thc 29{l' day of'JLrly 2023. 11 rvas subrriltcd that thc Applicant complicd with thc I{ulcs of'this Court by tiling a stay ol- cxccution in thc Iligh Court ol' lJganda at Jinja bu1 thc sarrc was disrnisscd and thus thc substantivc application bclirrc this (lour1. (lounscl citcd I lon 'l'hcodorc Ssckikubo and 3 Othcrs v 'l'hc Attorncy (icncral and 4 Othcrs, Constitutional Application No.6 of 2013, and (iashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkundiyc l20l5l UGSC 7 Tllt was arguccl Iurthcr that thc Applicant would sull'cr irrcparablc darnagc or that thc appcal would bc rcndcrcd nugak)ry il'a stay was not grantcd. [t was subnrittcd by thc Applicant in his allrclavit in supporl ol- thc application, that thc Ilcspondcnt had taxcd thc bill of'costs and that thc I{cspondcnt is hunting lor hinr to cxccutc thc I Iigh Court judgmcnt. Il,cspondcnt's wriltcn submissions 8 | Counscl lirr thc l{cspondcnt subrnittcd that thcrc arc various considcrations that thc applicant is bound to satisly bclblc this court can 3 | r' r cxcrcisc its discrctiorr to grant an application lirr a stay ol- cxcctttiott pcnding appcal. Cor.rrrscl citctl l)r. Ahmcd Muhamcd Kisuulc v (irccnland llank (in liquitlation|, Suprcntc (lourt Civil Application No.07 of 2010, llon Michcal Mabikkc v 'l'he Law l)cvclopmcnt Ccntrc, Suprcmc Court C'ivil Application l.l of 2015, and Nahurira Ilaam Aka Kashaba 2 othcrs v l,rvanga Mikc, Court of Appcal Civil No.l02l of 21123. glCounscl lirr thc l{cspondcnt did not disputc that thc Applicant lodgcd in this ('ourt a Noticc ol' Appcal and subscclucntly thc appcal itscll' vidc Civil appcal no.306 ol'202-i which was Illcd on 29rr'ol'Jtrly 2023. l0l Cor.rnscl submittcd rcgarding thc tikclihood ol'succcss ol'thc appcal that sincc thc applicant is lcading cvidcncc by dcponing an al'lldavit in supporl ol'this application, thc applicant rnust plcad thcsc avcnncnts that thc appcal is not liivolous and also lcad cogcnt cvidcncc in thc allidavit ol' support by nraking avcnncnts highlighting that thcrc arc scrious qucstions ot'Iaw ancl l'act which thc pcnding appcal raisc whiclr thc applicant lailcd to plcad and provc in his allidavit in support ol' this application. Counscl tirr thc Il.cspondcnt argucd that thc applicant ought to havc plcadcd in his allldavit thc scrious clttcstions ol' law or Iact that thc appcal is raising rathcr than just mcntioning that his appcal has highcr chanccs ol'succcss and is not fiivolous. ll I Counscl lor thc l(cspondcnt argucd that thc position ol- thc law is that this Court has to look at Judgmcnts ol'thc lowcr Courts to scc thc rcasons why a suit or appcal wcnt against thc applicanl/intcnding 4l appcllant. Counscl citcd .l.W.ll Kato<tra v M.S l, Ilukuba, Civil Application 49 of 1991. 12j1 Counscl invitcd this coun to rcvicw anncxurcs A, l], I) I , and I)2 attachcd to thc [{cspondcrrt's aflldavit in rcply/opposition kr thc application. Counscl argucd that this courl will llnd that thc applicant's appcal is liivolous and has no likclihood ol- succcss. C'ounscl lurthcr submittcd that thc appcllant's appcal is f ivolous ancl lras no highcr chancc ol- succcss. Counscl argucd that thc grounds ol'appeal raiscd by thc applicant in his Mcnrorandun.r of Appcal lllcd in tlris wcrc raiscd without rcasonablc causc iu law or ccluity and cannot bc supporrcd by good taith argulncnts lcading to a conclusion that thc pcnding appcal has no mcrit as it is liivolous. Counscl subnrittcd that thc solc purposc ol- lhc pcnding appcal is to dclay or ll'r,rslratc thc rcspondcnt liorn cnjoying thc liuits of'his Judgrncnt as thc vcry grounds raiscd in thc Mcmorandutn ol- Appcal filcd by thc applicant wcrc canvasscd by thc I ligh Court on appcal and thc IIigh coufl concLrrrcd and conllrnrcd. l3l Counscl subrnittcd that thc Applicant had not plcadcd or lcd cogcnt cvidcncc in his al'lrdavit in suppon ol'thc application that hc will strf'l'cr ilrcp:rlablc clanragc/substanlia I loss. (lounscl citcd 'f ropical Commoditics Supplics l,ltl v lntcrnational Crcdit llank l,td (in liquidation) (2004) 2 l:n 331 which was cluotcd rvith apploval in civil Applicatiorr No.l02l of 21123 Nahurira llaam Aka Kashaha & 2 Ors v l,wanga Mikc. 'lhc Coult clclincd what atlounts to Substantial loss kr rncan thc loss tlrat cannot bc quantilicd by any particular monctary corlpcnsation or that thcrc is no cxact nrathcnratical lillntr-rla to conlputc substantial loss. Counscl Iurthcr submittcd that thc Applicanl did not sl adducc any cvidcncc that il'this Court docs not grant a stay ol- cxccution, thc Appcal will bc rcndcrcd nugatory. l4l Counscl subnritlcd that thc rcspondcnt had incurrcd substantial cosLs in dcl'cncling thc appcal bclbrc this Court, thc I ligh Court, and thc lowcr Cour1, thcrc['orc counscl praycd that this Court invokcs i1s powcr undcr lulcl05(3) ol-thc rulcs ol'this courl to ordcr thc applicant to Iurnish l'urthcr sccurity lbr costs in thc sr.rm ol'LJ(jX 100,000,000/: (onc hundrcd rnillion shillings) lbr paymcnt ol thc past costs rclating to mattcrs in clucstion in thc appcal. l)raycd that thc sarrc bc dcpositcd in Court. l5 | On whcthcr thc applicalion was dclaycd, counscl sr"rbmittcd that this application was lllcd in this court on (rtr' March 2024, and yct thc applicant lllcd a Noticc ol'Appcal on 2"'r May 20?3. Counscl submittcd that il'thcrc was no dclay by thc Applicant in liting this application as hc clairns, thc Applicant ought to havc Illcd this application immcdiatcly alicr thc disrnissal olMisc. AI)l) No. 160 ol'2023 which was disrnisscd in Scptcrnbcr 2023. 'l'hc abovc irnpulcs dclay on thc parl ol'thc applicant to institutc th is application. l6l Counscl statcd that thc Applicant had I'ailcd to lulllll thc rcquircrrcnts lirr thc grant ol'stay ol'cxccution. Counscl praycd that this application bc dismisscd. 6l Considcration 17l 'l'hc principlcs upon which thc ordcrs to stay cxccution arc grantcd by thc Appcllatc Coutls wcrc rc-statcd by thc Suprcnrc Cour.t in Thcodore Ssckikubo & Othcrs v A.(i, SC Constitutional Application, I20l3l UGSC 2l (10 Octobcr 2013), as lollows: l. 'l'hc lpplit'unt u'ill :;t1l/ar irrtpuruhla dumugc or tha uppaul will hc randared nugdtot'-t'i./ lhe ordcr i:; rtot gruntcd. ll. 'l'hc uppaol ltu.s u slrorrg likclihuxl of :;uctass or u ltrinru.fitcia cusa ol lha right lo ultJtutl lll. l/ l antl 2 c'rileriu have nol hccn astuhli.shetl. lha (\turl nrust con.sidar v'hcrc lltc hulance of tonvnicncc lia:s; und ll'. 'l'he upplicttion hos hcan hrought v,ithout dekty. I tl I 'l'hc powcr of this court to grant ordcrs to stay cxccution is providcd lor undcr I{ulc 6 (2) (b) ol'thc llulcs ol'this Coufl as fbllows: (2) Suhiact to suh-rule (l) o/ this rula, llrc institutiotl rtf utt uppaul :;hall rut! oparote lo :;tt.sltcnl uny sanlanca or lo .\lu.t' lha axac'utitttt, but t hc ('ourt ntay- (u) .... (h) in unv tiril procaadings. whara u nolicc o/ upptal hus hccn Itxlged hy rule 76 o/ thcsa llulas. ortlcr u tilut' of axac'ulion. un ir1iu,lclio,l. ot'u.tl0-y ts/ procacdings on.tuclt lernts u.\ llrc courl nru.t' t hink.iust. l9l l(ulc 76 o['thc sarxc I{ulcs providcs, in part, as [bllows: 76. Notice ol uppeul in ('itil l1t1tcul.r. 7l 20| (l),4ny pcr:;ott v'htt desires lo uppaul to lltc ('ourl slutll giw notiLa in v'riling. which shall ha lodged in duplicute u,ith lhe ragislrdr o/ the l ligh ('ourt. (2) livcr.t, ruslita untler sub-ntlc (l) o/ this rulc :;holl, sub jett to rulcs ll3 and 95 ol thcsa llulc.:. bc lodged rithin./iturtacn da.t,s u/icr lha date ol lha decision aguinsl v'hich it is dcc'idcd to qtpeal. Counscl acknowlcdgcd thc lact that thc Applicant lodgcd a Noticc ol'Appcal vidc Civil Appcat No.306 ol'2023 by ltulc 7(> ol'thc ltulcs ol' this Court as rcquircd unclcr l{ulc 6(2). 2l I On whcthcr thc appcal has a likclihood ol'succcss, counsel lbr thc rcspondcnt argucd that thc nrcmorandurn ol' appcal Il lcd on thc 29'r' ol' July 2023, raiscd glounds without lcgal basis and ccluity, hcncc cannot bc sLrpportc(l by good llitlr argumcnts. 'l'his Cor.rrt has ol-l-crcd guidancc in dctcrmining whcthcr tlrc appcal has a likclihoocl ol'succcss in Ilaruna Scntongo v I & M llank L'l'l) (formcrly) Oricnt llank (U) L'l'l), (Oivil Application No. ll3 of 2023) 120231 U(;CA 153 l9 May 2023. Whilc rclying on Stanlcy Kangcthc Kinyanjui v 'I'ony Kcttcr & 5 Othcrs [20131 c Kl,lt, thc Court ol'Appcal hclil that; '' (t'ii). .1tt urguuhla ultJtr:ul nutsl ru ntcc:xtill, :;trttce tl. hul ona v,hich oughl to ha urgutd .lirlly ha.litra thc ('ourl: ona which is ttol li-ivtlous. (r'iii). ln utn,sitlaring un upplic'ution hrttught undar llula 5(2)(h) tha ('ourt nnt.\t tutl nnrke dt.linitive or.linul /incling.s tt/ ailhcr lirl rtr latr ul llul .\lul:c ct.t tkting:;ts nruy' t'nthruce llrc ullitntttt: huuring ol tht nuin ultpeul 8l 22]; 'l'his courl in Ilaruna Scntongo (supra), wcnt ahcad and statcd that it was not ncccssary at this stagc to prc-cmpt considcrations o1' thc rlraltcrs ol thc ILrll bcnch in dctcrmining thc appcal. 'l'hc Courl uscd thc nrcrnorandum and thc clucstions by thc Appellant to cstablish whcthcr thc appcal was not l-rivolous. Likcwisc, on a pcrusal through thc Mcmorandum ol Appcal, thc appcal raiscs issr.rcs rcgarding thc award ol' damagcs and visit of' thc locus in quo. 'l'hcsc havc a lcgal basis. I thcrclorc do not agrcc with thc subrnission of- thc I{cspondcnt, that thc grounds ol- appcal do rrot havc a lcgal or cquitablc basis. It is thcrclbrc nry considcrcd vicw that thc Applicant has ntadc ctul a primu.facie casc. 231 In dctcrnrining whcthcr an applicant shall sul'lcr irreparablc darnagcs, thc Court must bc satis{'icd that il'thc Applicant succccds on appcal, hc would bc adccluatcly corttpcnsatcd by an award ol'darnagcs lilr thc loss hc would havc sustaincd as a rcsult ol'thc Dcltndant's actions. Scc American Cyanamidc v Ethicon I l975ll ALL l).|t.504. In his subnrissions counscl subrnittcd that according to pal'agraph 4 of' thc allldavit ol- support ol- thc application, thc proccss ol' carrying out cxccution had startcd.'l'hc dccrcc had bccn lllcd. and thc bill ol-costs was llxcd and taxcd on thc l4'r'day o{'July 2023 tn thc lligh Court Jinja. It has to bc notcd that laxation alonc docs not dctnonstratc that thc Appcllant would su['lcr in'cparablc datnagc il' thc application is no1 grantcd. I agrcc with thc submissions ol'counscl lbr tlrc rcspondcnt, that thc applicant rrrusl adducc cogcnt cvidcncc that il'thc application is not grantcd thc applicant would sull'cr irrcparablc damagcs that cannot cornpcnsalcd in monctary tcrn-rs'l'lrc applicant has not also dctlonstratcd how thc appcal would bc nugatory il'thc application is not grantcd. sl, 241 As to whcthcr this application was {llcd without dclay, thc dccision that is sought was handcd down on thc 28'r'day ol'April 2023 thc Noticc ol-appcal was lrlcd in thc IIigh Court on thc 2"d ol May 2023 and thc Mcrrorandum ol- Appcal was Iilc,c! in this honourablc Clourt on thc 29tr' day o[' July 2023. (iivcn that thc Applicant sought to cxhaust his rcmcdics in thc lowcr court llrst, whcrc hc tjlcd thc Iirst application bclbrc this onc, I llnd that this application was lrlcd without unrcasonablc dclay. 25]1 't'hc Applicant did not makc mcntion ol' sccurity ol duc pcrlbrnrancc howcvcr it has bccn hcld that thc pa(ics asking (br a stay should bc prcparcd to mcct thc conditions sct out in Ordcr XXXIX lLulc (4X3 ) (thcn) ol' thc Civil l)roccdurc Ilulcs. 'l'hc Ordcr is currcntly Ordcr 43(4) (c) ol'thc Civil l)roccdurc Ilulcs No. 7l <tl'2014. Scc l,awrencc Musitwa Kyazze v Eunicc llusingyc SCCA No. l8 1990.'l'his is to thc cl'{'cct that no ordcr lbr a slay ol'cxccution shall bc tnadc undcr sub-rulc ( I ) or (2) ol' thc rulc unlcss thc court making it is satisllcd that thc sccurity has bccn givcn by thc applicant lirr thc duc pcrlurmancc ol'thc dccrcc or ordcr as rnay ultimatcly bc binding upon lriln or hcr. l'ronr thc cvidcncc on rccord, thc applicant has not providcd any sccurity lbr thc duc pcrlirrrnancc ol'thc dccrcc. 26]; Sincc thcrc is a Noticc ol'Appcal, Illcd without unrcasonablc dclay and thc gror.rnds of- appcal raiscd triablc issucs, this court cxcrciscs its discrction and grants thc applicatiorl to stay ol- cxcctttion. Costs shall abidcd thc outcornc o I' thc Appcal 10 I lso ordcr. l)atccl signcd and dclivcrcd at Karnpala this t0l4 a( E( r>ur..fu^aEur' ,'L C. (;ASIIIIIAI}AKI,] .lUS't'tCE OF AI'l',l.Al. 11 I