Matovu & Matovu Advocates v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 15 of 2025) [2025] UGSC 44 (26 September 2025)

ar/ ,*/- THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OO15 OF 2025 & ctvtL APPLtcATt0N N0. 0015 0F 2025 (AR|STNG FRoM CoURT 0F APPEAL C|VIL APPL|CAT|oN N0. 0399 0F 2024) ARtSTNG FRoM CoURT 0F APPEAL CrVrL APPLTCATToN N0. 0s60 0F 2025) (ARTSTNG FRoM SUPREME CoURT CrVrL APPEAL N0. 12 0F 2025) MAToVU & MAToVU ADVoCATES) APPLICANT VERSUS

r. ATToRNEYGENERAL)

2. BERNARD MWETEISE}

3. CHR|S ABEL NKUNZTGoMA) RESPONDENTS RULING OF CHRISTOPHER MADRAMA IZAMA, JSC The Appticant fited this application seeking an order of stay of execution pending the determination of the substantive apptication. The Appticant prays for a stay of the interim orders and rulings of the Court of Appeat in Civit Apptication No. 0399 of 2024. Secondty, the Appticants seek an interim order of stay of proceedings in Civit Apptication No. 562 of 2022 untit the hearing and disposat of the substantive apptication in this court. Finalty, the Appticant prays for the costs of the apptication to be provided for. The grounds of the apptication are that the Appticant fited a "substantive apptication" for a stay of proceedings in the Court of Appeat pending the hearing and determination of the appeat. Secondty, the 2"d and 3'd Respondents have filed affidavits in repty to the main application in Civit Apptication No. 562 of 2022 in comptiance with the Court of Appeat Orders in Civit Apptication No. 560 ot 2022. Thirdty, the act of fiting the affidavits amounts to a serious threat to the execution of the orders of the Court of

Appeat by the Respondents in Civil Apptication No 0399 ot 2024 before the hearing of the pending substantive application. Finatty, the Appticants averred that it is just equitabte that an interim order of stay of proceedings is granted, pending the hearing and determination of the 'substantive apptication'. The apptication is supported by the affidavit of Birungi Rosemary, an advocate practicing with Messrs. Matovu & Matovu Advocates. She states in the affidavit that the Appticant filed Civit Apptication Nos 562 and 560 of 2022in this court (meaning in the Court of Appeat). Civit Apptication No. 560 of 2022 was heard and determined by a Singte Justice, Muzamiru Kibeedi Mutangula, JA (when he was stit[ a Justice of the Court of Appeat), granting specific orders for execution of the Court's decree in consotidated Appeats Nos 230 of 2013 & Civit Appeal No. 10 ol 2014, al[ arising from HCCS No. 135 of 2003. Rosemary Birungi further deposed that during the execution of the orders of the Court of Appeal in Civit Apptication No. 560 ot 2022 by the Applicant, the 2"d and 3'd Respondents filed Civit Application No. 399 of 2024 and Civil Apptication No 400 ot 2024, praying inler alia for review of the decision of the singte justice which was issued in Civit Apptication No. 560 of 2024. The apptication was determined in favour of the 2"d and 3'd Respondents, and the Appticant was dissatisfied with the review decision and fited an appeal in the Supreme Court. After fiting a Notice of Appeat, the Appticant apptied by tetter requesting a record of proceedings of the Court of Appeat, whereupon the Appticant fited in this Court a substantive apptication for stay of proceedings, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The 2"d and 3'd Respondents fited affidavits in reply to Civit Apptication No. 562 of 2022, in the Court of Appeat, and the Appticant contends that this act constitutes a serious threat of the execution of the orders of the Court of Appeat in Civit Apptication No. 0399 of 2024 before the hearing of the substantive apptication that is pending in this Court. The Appticant contends that it is just and equitabte that the apptication is granted by this Court.

5 ln repty, Chris Abel Nkunzingoma of C\o Centre for Legat Aid deposed on behatf of the 2"d and 3'd Respondents in his capacity as the 3'd Respondent and on behalf of the 2"d Respondent with his written authority as foltows: He read and understood the contents of the affidavit of Rosemary Birungi and asserts that it contains fatsehoods and material distortion of facts. Based on information from his lawyers, Messrs. Center for Legat Aid, he asserts that the apptication is incompetent because it ought to have been fited first in the Court of Appeat. Moreover, no exceptionaI circumstances were p[eaded or demonstrated by the appettant to warrant the fiting of the apptication directty in the Supreme Court. Further, the second Respondent and he were ptaintiffs in Civit Suit No. 135 of 2003, a representative suit filed for and on behalf of 824 other plaintiffs in the name of the second Respondent and another. The High Court entered judgment for the ptaintiffs and made a declaration that the ptaintiffs were entitted to a pension catculated in accordance with the originat contracts of service, general damages, and interest thereon. UTL and UPL appeated against the decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeat in Civit Appeat No. 230 of 2013 and Civit Appeat No. l0 of 2014. These appeats were consotidated, and judgment was entered against the appettants, uphotding the decision of the High Court.

25 The Appticant was the [awyer for the ptaintiffs in Civit Suit No. 135 of 2003. Thereafter, the Appticants sought to recover 20% of the decretal sums as '[egaI fees' without a valid remuneration agreement with the beneficiaries of the Civit Suit. This was opposed by many beneficiaries, inctuding the deponent and the second Respondent. Further, the Appticant instead 30 communicated to the Ministry of ICT and Nationat Guidance demanding that the decreed sum in Civit Suit No. 135 of 2003 be deposited into its account where 20% only woutd be retained by the Appticant and 80% would be paid to each individuat beneficiary account. The first Respondent advised that it would not be involved in the enforcement of private agreements between 3s the beneficiaries and the Appticant. The Appticant, as a firm of advocates, fited Civit Apptication No. 562 ol 2022 to prevent the first Respondent from paying the court awards directty to the !udgment creditors in Civit Suit No. 135 of 2003/Respondents in the Consotidated Appeats in the Court of Appeat, and sought the payment to be made to it for onward transmission to the beneficiaries. The Appticant atteged that it was entitted lo 20% of each benef iciary's decretaI entitlement. These consisted of pension arrears, gratuity, and general damages. The Applicant fited Civit Apptication No. 560 ol 2022 seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the first Respondent's agents from depositing the beneficiaries' monies on their personaI accounts pending the determination of Civit Apptication No.562 ot2022. None of the beneficiaries was a partyto that apptication. A single justice of the Court of Appeat heard the temporary injunction apptication, granting the finat retiefs in Civit Apptication No. 562 ol 2022 and ordering 20% lo be remitted to the Applicant and 80% to the beneficiaries. The second Respondent and the deponent fited Civit Apptication No. 399 ot 2024 for setting aside the ruling in Civil Apptication No. 560 ol 2022, and also to be added as parties to Civit Apptication No. 560 of 2022, and it was granted. 0n l9th August 2025, the Appticant filed the current application and Civit Apptication No. 15 of 2025 after the third Respondent and the deponent had fited an affidavit in repty to Civit Apptication No. 562 ot 2025. 0n the basis of the information of his [awyers, Messrs. Center for Legat Aid, the deponent believes that there is no competent Notice of Appeal and that the Appticant has no right of appeal to be protected by the orders sought. Further the orders sought wi[[ have the effect of affecting other simitarty situated pensioners. 0n the basis of information of his tawyers, Mr. Nkunzingoma asserts that the Appticant's substantive apptication is incompetent and invatid. This is because no mode of execution of the 0rder in Civit Apptication No. 399 of 2025 has commenced. Further, it is not true that there is an imminent threat of execution or any of the actions comptained about that woutd render the substantive application nugatory.

5 The parties fi[ed written submissions for and against the apptication. The Appticants'submissrons are filed by Messrs. Matovu and Matovu Advocates, white the 2nd and 3'd Respondents (Mr. Bernard Mweteise and Mr. Chris Abet Nkunzingoma, respectivety) f ited submissions through their Iawyers, Messrs. Centre for LegaI Aid. When the apptication came for hearing on 25th September, 2025, Mr. John Matovu, SC and learned counsel for the AppLicant appeared jointty with learned counsel Mr. JoeL Kidandaire. The learned Senior State Attorney Mr. HiLary Nathan EbiLa, appeared for the ]'t Respondent white, the learned counseI Stanl.ey 0kecho appeared for the 2"d and 3'd Respondents. The Court was addressed in written submissions. The [earned Senior State Attorney was granted leave to submit on whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeat and rntertocutory apptrcations and ruting was reserved for the 26th of September 2025 at 9.30 am. Appticants Submissions The Appticant's written submissions are that the apptication is brought under Rutes l+2 and 43 of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rutes and is supported by an aff idavit sworn by Birungi Rosemary, an advocate practicing with the Appticant law firm. The issue for determination is whether the apptication merits an rnterim stay of execution and stay of proceedings. The Appticant's arguments in support are that its apptication meets the three conditions set out by this Court in Patrick Kaumba v lsmail Dabule No. 3 of 2018 SCCA.lhe conditions are that an Appticant for an interim order must satisfy the court of the fotLowlng: (a), tnat a competent notice of appeal. has been fiLed on record, (b) that a substantive apptication has been fited and ts pending before the Court, and (c) tnat there is a threat of execution of the orders sought to be stayed. These conditions are atso found in the hotding of G.M. Oketto, JSC in Hwang Sung lndustries Limited v Tajdin Hussein and Others SCCA No. 19 of 2008, where it was hetd that it is sufficient for the Appticant for an interim

order, to show that a substantive apptication is pending and there is a serious threat of execution before the substantive apptication can be heard. ln conctusion, the Appticant prays that the court grants the apptication for an interim stay of execution of the orders from Civit Apptication No. 0399 of

The Appticant's counseIsubmitted that att three requirements for an interim stay have been met: These are that (a) there is a competent Notice of Appeat on record. The Appticant provided evidence of a notice of appeat dated 4'h 10 August 2025, and a letter requesting for a copy of the record of proceedings of the Court of Appeat dated 5th August 2025. The Appticant fited a competent appeat with the Supreme Court, referenced as Sup-00-CV-CL-01?-2025, because it was aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeat in the apptication for review. (b) There is a substantial application for a stay of 1s execution and proceedings fited on the court record. Counset submitted that the Appticant fited the interim application (Miscellaneous Apptication No. 15 ol 2025), which arises from the substantive apptication (Civit Apptication No. 15 of 2025), which was todged on the 20'h of August, 2025. (c), There is a threat of execution. CounseI for the Appticant asserts that a threat of 20 execution exists because the 2nd and 3'd Respondents fited affidavits in reply to Civit Apptication No. 562 ot 2022, which is pending before the Court of Appeat. The Applicant argues that this act constitutes a threat of the execution of the orders from Civit Apptication No. 0399 ol 2024 before the substantive apptication for stay can be heard. Counset retied on Osman 2s Kassim Ramathan v Century Bottling Company Limited SCCA No. 35 of 2019, where 0pio Aweri, JSC, hetd that "execution in its widest sense signifies the enforcement of or the giving effect to the judgment or the order of the Courts of Justice". The Appticant contends that the Respondents' action of filing affidavits in reply is a process of enforcing the orders and therefore 30 constitutes an imminent threat. Additionatty, the Appticant notes that the first Respondent, the Attorney Generat, is required to deposit money due to the Appticant into a court of Appeal account in enforcement of orders issued in Civit Apptication No. 0399 of 2025, which is also a threat of execution.

2024 and a stay of proceedings from Civil Application No. 562 ot 2022, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive apptication. ln repty, Counsel for the 2'd and 3'd Respondents object to the apptication on the ground that it is incompetent on several grounds. Firstty, the Applicant improperty "leapfrogged" to the highest court without first seeking retief from the Court of Appeat. This ground of objection is based on the provisions of rule 41(1) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules, which provides lhal'. "Where an application may be made either to the court or to the Court of Appeal, it shall be made to the Court of Appeal firsl'. Counset submitted that Rule 41 (l) is mandatory as determined by the Supreme Court in Attorney Generat and Another Versus Eddie Kwizera, Supreme Court Civil Applications No. I and 3 of 2020, and cited as good authority in Osman Kassim Ramathan Versus Century Bottling Company, Supreme Courl Civil Application No. 34 of 2019. The apptication's breach of the mandatory terms of rute 4l (l) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rutes by fiting the application directty in the Supreme Court without first fiting it in the [ower court is exacerbated by the Appticant's fai[ure to ptead any exceptional circumstances that woutd have justified it being fited first in the Supreme Court. ln the absence of a ptea and evidence of exceptional circumstances, the Applicant's apptication is barred for being incurabty incompetent and improperty before the court. The Respondents pray that the apptication be dismissed on this so[e ground. Concerning the Appticant's grounds for the interim retief, the Respondents' counseI submitted in the alternative, and without prejudice to the preliminary point of taw that the application has no merit. Firstty, the Respondents contend that the Applicant's case rests on the existence of a competent notice of appeat, a substantive application, and ttre atteged imminent threat of execution. These grounds are not available to the Appticant on the fotlowing grounds:

Respondents' Submissions 5 Firstty, counseI submitted that there was no competent Notice of Appeat. This is because no right of appeal exists. CounseI contends that the right of appeal to the Supreme Court is a creature of statute under Section 5(l) of the Judicature Act, which provides that an appeaI may tie to the Supreme Court where the Court of Appeat "confirms, varies, or reverses a judgment or order inctuding an interlocutory order, given by the High Court in exercise of its originat jurisdiction and either confirmed, varied or reversed by the Court of Appeal". ln Zubeda Mohamed and Anor versus Laila Kaka Wallia and Anor Supreme Court Civil Reference No. 07 of 20ld the Supreme Court stated that "in order to base an apptication for an interim stay, it is needless to say that the undertying Notice of Appeat must be a valid one; otherwise the substantive application on which the interim order is based would have no [eg to stand on". Secondty, there is no right of appeaI to the Supreme Court from an interlocutory order of the Court of Appeat. Counsel submitted that the decision sought to be appeated ls an intertocutory order of the Court of Appeat (Civit Apptication No. 399 ot 20241, which merely set aside orders made in another temporary injunction application (Civit Apptication No. 560 ot 2022) of the same Court. The order sought to be appeated does not meet the criteria in section 6(1) of the Judicature Act. Consequenlty, the notice of appeal is invalid and cannot form the basis for either a substantive application or an interim order. Secondty, the Respondents' counseI submitted that there is no substantive apptication pending in this court from which the instant application arises. That the substantive apptication is a nultity because it is based on an incompetent Notice of Appeat. lt is an assertion that, if the underlying appeat is invatid, the substantive application has no tegalfoundation and is "invatid, nu[[ and void". CounseI reiterated submissions that the substantive apptication is incompetent for being in breach of rute 4l(l) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules, as it was fited first in the Supreme Court and not in the Court of Appeat.