Task1(b)(i)&(ii)

(i) Whatarethestepstobetakentoproceedwiththeintendedappeal?
Howtocommenceanappeal.
AnappealtotheCourtofAppealincivilappealsisregulatedbypartIVoftheCourtofAppealrules..amustr
eading.75—100..
- Itisaprudentrequirementtoextractadecreeororderbeforelodgingtheappealsavethatthefailuretoex
tractadecreedoesnotinanywayaffectthecompetenceofanappealfromtheHighCourttotheCourtof
Appeal.
HenryKasambavYakoboRutarihambwe(unreported)CACANo.5of2008.Itwasstatedthatitisnot
amandatoryrequirementtohaveadecreeextractedbecausetherequirementofarecordofappealunderrul
e87doesnotprovideforit.
UBCvSinbaKLtdMwondhaheldthatitisnotamandatoryrequirementtohaveadecreeextractedbecau
setherequirementofarecordofappealunderrule87doesnotprovideforit.
- AnappealtotheCourtofAppealiscommencedbyanoticeofappealwhichmustbesetoutintheformpr
escribedundertherules.
➢ ThenoticeofappealmustbelodgedintheHighCourt(notCourtofAppeal)
➢ AnoticeofappealmustbesignedbytheintendingappellantorcounselaswellastheregistraroftheHig
hCourt.
➢ UponlodgmentintheHighCourt,theregistraroftheHighCourt,isrequiredtotranslatethenoticeofap
pealtotheCourtofAppeal.Rules75and76
➢ ThenoticeofappealmustbelodgedintheHighCourtwithin14daysafterdeliveryofthejudgmentorru
lingappealedfrom.
ThefactsshowthatFanonlodgedthenoticeofappealintimetimebuthavesincenotyettakenanyfur
therstepinthematter
Thereforeheshouldnowcomplywiththefollowing.
➢ Thenoticeofappealmustbeservedonallpartiesaffectedbytheappeal.Theserviceiseffectedatthelast
knownaddressoftheaffectedparties.Rule78oftheCOARules.
➢ Thenoticeofappealmustbeservedwithin7daysfromthedateoflodgment.Rule78AriongvObai(H

CT-04-CV-MA-231-2013)

TheapplicationwasforordersthattheNoticeofappealhadnotbeenservedandthememorandumofappeal
hadnotbeenfiledandserved.ApplicantreliedonthecaseofRurangarangav.HorizonCoachLtdSC.21/
2008toholdthatserviceofanoticeofappealonallpartiesisanessentialsteptoconstituteanappeal.Inthisc
asenosteptoservewasdone.Courtagreedwiththeapplicant’ssubmissionsandstruckoutthenoticeofapp
ealforfailuretoserveitontheapplicantafterfilingit.

NantumbweVKuteesa;Therespondentsfiledanapplicationseekingtostrikeoutanoticeofappealonac
countoflatefiling.Theapplicantsappliedseekingforextensionoftimewithinwhichtoservethenoticeofa
ppealandtheletterrequestingforproceedingsoutoftime.Theapplicationforextensionoftimewasreject
ed.Andonfurtherappealitwasheldthattherewasnopendingappealastheapplicationtoserveanoticeofa
ppealandaletterrequestingforproceedingsoutoftimewasrejected.Thetimetofileanappealhasalreadyl
apsed.
➢ Oncethenoticeofappealisservedontherespondent,therespondentisrequiredtofileanoticeofaddres
sintheCourtofAppeal.Rule80
Asperourfacts,sincethelodgingofnoticeofappeal,nootherstephasbeentaken.Thefactsdonotstatethatt
herespondentwasserved.Thetimeofservicehasalreadylapsed.ThereforeFanonshouldmovecourtfore
xtensionoftimewithinwhichtoservetherespondent.
➢ Theappealisitselfinstitutedwithin60daysfromthedateoflodgmentoftheNoticeofAppeal.Rule83.
Theappealisfiledwhenamemorandumandrecordofappealtogetherwithpaymentfortherelevantco
urtfeesandsecurityforcostsarepresentedforfilingattheregistryoftheCourtofAppeal
Theruleprovides;83.Institutionofappeals.
(1)Subjecttorule113oftheseRules,anappealshallbeinstitutedinthecourtbylodgingintheregistry,wit
hinsixtydaysafterthedatewhenthenoticeofappealwaslodged—
(a)amemorandumofappeal,insixcopies,orastheregistrarshalldirect;
(B) therecordofappeal,insixcopies,orastheregistrarshalldirect;
(C) theprescribedfee;and
(D)Securityforthecostsoftheappeal.

➢ However,itmaynotbepossibletohavetheproceedingsandjudgmenttyped,certifiedandavailedwit
hin60daysafterlodgmentofthenoticeofappeal.Itisthereforeprudentbutamandatoryrequirementas
wellthatatthelodgmentofthenoticeofappealorwithin30daysfromthedateofjudgmentorruling,thei
ntendingappellantmustformallyapplyfortypedandcertifiedrecordofproceedingsandjudgment.T
heletterapplyingforsuchproceedingsmustbeservedontherespondentorrespondent’scounsel.Rul
e83(1)(2)(3)COARulesRule83(2)oftheRulesprovides:

➢ “WhereanapplicationforacopyoftheproceedingsintheHighCourthasbeenmadewithinthir
tydaysafterthedecisiondesiredtobeappealedagainsthasbeenmade,thereshall,incomputing
thetimewithinwhichtheappealistobeinstituted,beexcludedsuchtimeasmaybecertifiedbyth
eregistraroftheHighCourtashavingbeenrequiredforthepreparationanddeliverytotheapp
ellant ofthatcopy.”
Rule83(3)ofthesameRulesprovides:

➢ “Anappellantshallnotbeentitledtorelyonsubrule(2)ofthisrule,unlesshisorherapplicationfo
rthecopywasinwritingandacopyofitwasservedontherespondent,andtheappellanthasretai
nedproofofthatservice.”(sic)

NyendwohaBigirwaNorahVsTheReturningOfficer&Anor(CIVIL
APPLICATIONNO.23OF2011)[2012]UGCA
 Whethertherespondents’NoticeofAppealshouldbestruckoutforfailuretoservetheApplicantwitht
heletterrequestingforproceedings?

Held;TheserviceenvisagedunderRule83(supra)must,inourview,beeffectedontheaffectedpartyi
mmediatelybytheotherpartyapplyingforthecopyoftheproceedings.Thatfailurebytherespondentt
oservetheapplicantwithacopyoftheletterrequestingfortheproceedingsimmediatelyitwaswrittent
othecourtamountedtofailurebytherespondenttotakeanessentialstepinprosecutingtheappeal.Itw
asafatalfailuretoo.
Inthefinalresult,weallowtheapplicationandaccordinglystrikeouttheNoticeofAppeal.InMaviriVsJo
mayiPropertyConsultantsLtd(CIVILAPPLICATIONN0.274OF2014)

Held;Itisclearfromtheaboveprovisionsthatrule83(1)providesthatappealsmustbefiledwithin60days
ofthedateoftheinitialdecision.OntheotherhandRule83(2)and83(3)permitanappellanttoexcludefrom
thecomputationofthe60days’limit,thetimetakenbytheRegistrartoprepareanddelivercopiesoftypedp
roceedingstotheappellant,providedtheapplicationfortheproceedingswasinwritingandthatacopyofth
esaidletter/applicationwasservedupontherespondent

➢Theeffectofaletterapplyingfortheproceedings,isthatthetimewithinwhichtheappealisinstit
utedstartsrunningfromthedatewhentheproceedingsaremadeavailabletotheappellant.

NationalHousing&ConstructionCo.Ltd.VsSalomeT.B.Kyomukama((CivilApplic.No133Of2
009))[2011]UGCA
Held;
Rule83(1)providesthatappealsmustbefiledwithin60daysofthedateoftheinitialdecision.
However,Rules83(2)and83(3)permitanappellanttoexclude,fromthecomputationofthe
60days’limit,timetakenbytheRegistrartoprepareanddelivercopiesofthetypedproceedingstothea
ppellant,providedthattheapplicationforproceedingswasinwritingandthatacopyofthesaidletter/a
pplicationwasservedupontherespondent.
Itshouldbepointedoutthatproofofserviceoftheletterenvisagedbyrule83(3)canonlybebyhavin
gtheletterendorsed.This,togetherwiththecertificateofcorrectnessoftherecord,bytheRegistra
rgoestoconfirmwhenthetimestartstorunwithinwhichtofiletheappeal.
Itisthusclearthatintheabsenceoftheendorsementontheletterapplyingfortherecord,therespon
dentcannotclaimthebenefitofRule83(3)forthereisnowayofprovingthattheletterwasactuallys
ervedontherespondent.Serviceandproofofsuchserviceismandatory.Thecourt,therefore,hasn
ooptionbuttoholdthattheletterapplyingfortherecordwasneverservedandthattherefore,thenot
iceofappealisnullandvoid.Itisaccordinglystruckout.
IsabiryeFarooqmustthereforeformallyapplyfortypedproceedingsandservetheletterontheres
pondent.
➢ TheregistraroftheHighCourtisrequiredtoformallynotifytheappellantsthattheproceedingsareava
ilableandthatiswhenthetimestartsrunning.
WanumeDavidvURACACANo.138of2010
Held;WereiteratethatthelawrequiresandimposesadutyupontheRegistraroftheHighCourt,towho
mawrittenapplicationforacopyofproceedingsismade,toreplyinwritingtotheapplicant,informing
thesaidapplicantastothereadinessandavailabilityofthecopyofproceedingsappliedfor..
➢ TheregistraroftheHighCourtisalsorequiredtoexecuteacertificate(registrar’scertificate)confirmi
ngthattherequestwasmadefortheproceedings,thesamewereavailedandthetimeexcludedfromco
mputation.
WanumeDavidvURA
Held;TheRespondent,havingappliedforacopyoftheproceedings,wasentitledtoreceivefrom,andt
heCourtRegistrarwasunderalegaldutytoissue,acertificatecertifyingthetimetakenforthepreparati
onandtheavailabilityoftheRecordofproceedingsthattherespondenthadappliedfor

➢ Oncetheproceedingsareavailed,theappellantmustformulategroundsofappealwhichmustfollowt
heformatsetoutinrule86oftheCOARules.
➢ MustpreparesixcopiesRule83(1)(a)
86.Contentsofmemorandumofappeal.
(1) Amemorandumofappealshallsetforthconciselyandunderdistinctheads,withoutargumentornarrative,theg
roundsofobjectiontothedecisionappealedagainst,specifyingthepointswhichareallegedtohavebeenwrong
fullydecided,andthenatureoftheorderwhichitisproposedtoaskthecourttomake.

(2) Thegroundsofobjectionshallbenumberedconsecutively.
(3) AmemorandumofappealshallbesubstantiallyinFormFintheFirstScheduletotheseRulesandshallb
esignedbyoronbehalfoftheappellant
➢Preparearecordofappealsixcopies.Rule83(1)(b)Rule87;
87.Contentsofrecordofappeal.
(1)ForthepurposeofanappealfromtheHighCourt,initsoriginaljurisdiction,therecordofappealshall,su
bjecttosubrule(3)ofthisrule,containcopiesofthefollowingdocuments—
(A)anindexofallthedocumentsintherecordwiththenumbersofthepagesat
whichtheyappear;
(B) astatementshowingtheaddressforserviceoftheappellantandregardsa
nyrespondentwhohasnotfurnishedanaddressforservice,thenasrequir
edbyrule78oftheseRules,hisorherlastknownaddressandproofofservi
ceonhimorherofthenoticeofappeal;
(C) thepleadings;
(D)thetrialjudge’snotesofthehearing;
(E) thetranscriptofanyshorthandnotestakenoranyothernoteshowsoeverr
ecordedatthetrial;
(F) theaffidavitsreadandalldocumentsputinevidenceatthehearing,orifth
osedocumentsarenotintheEnglishlanguage,certifiedtranslationsofth
em;(g)thejudgmentorreasonedorder;
(H)theorder,ifany,givingleavetoappeal;
(I) thenoticeofappeal;and
(J) anyotherdocumentsnecessaryfortheproperdeterminationoftheappeal,includinganyinterlocutory
proceedingswhichmaybedirectlyrelevant.

➢ Filethememorandumandtherecordofappealwithin60daysfromthedateofreceivingtherecordofpr
oceedings.Rule83(1)
➢ Pay(c)theprescribedfee;and(d)securityforthecostsoftheappealRule83(1)(a)&(d)
SecurityforcostsisprovidedforunderRule105.Securityforcostsincivilappeals.(1)Subjecttorule113ofth
eseRules,thereshallbelodgedincourtontheinstitutionofacivilappeal,assecurityforcostsoftheappeal,t
hesumof200,000shillings

➢ Thememorandumandrecordofappealmustbeservedontherespondentwithin7daysfromthedateofl
odgment.Rule88CourtOfAppealRules.Thisisamandatoryrequirement..

EXTENSIONOFTIME
➢ Wheretheappellanthasdefaultedonfilingorserving,eitherthenoticeofappealoramemorandumorr
ecordofappeal,theremedyavailableisanapplicationforextensionoftimewithwhichtofileorserve.T
heapplicationisbroughtunderRule5andRule2(2)oftheCourtOfAppealRules,andisbynoticeofmo
tionwithavalidaffidavit.Sincejudgmentwasdeliveredon17/07/2022wefilingoutoftimeandthusne
edforapplicationforextensionoftime.

Rule.5.Extensionoftime.
Thecourtmay,forsufficientreason,extendthetimelimitedbytheseRulesorbyanydecisionofthecourtor
oftheHighCourtforthedoingofanyactauthorisedorrequiredbytheseRules,whetherbeforeoraftertheex
pirationofthattimeandwhetherbeforeorafterthedoingoftheact;andanyreferenceintheseRulestoanysu
chtimeshallbeconstruedasareferencetothetimeasextended.
Rule.2(2)NothingintheseRulesshallbetakentolimitorotherwiseaffecttheinherentpowerofthecourt,o
rtheHighCourt,tomakesuchordersasmaybenecessaryforattainingtheendsofjusticeortopreventabuse
oftheprocessofanysuchcourt,andthatpowershallextendtosettingasidejudgmentswhichhavebeenpro
vednullandvoidaftertheyhavebeenpassed,andshallbeexercisedtopreventabuseoftheprocessofanyco
urtcausedbydelay.

Formofapplication;
Rule;43.Formofapplicationstocourt.
Subjecttosubrule(3)ofthisruleandtoanyotherruleallowinginformalapplication,allapplicationstothec
ourtshallbebymotion,whichshallstatethegroundsoftheapplication.
(2)AnoticeofmotionshallbesubstantiallyinFormAintheFirstScheduletotheseRulesandshallbesigne
dbyoronbehalfoftheapplicant.

PRINCIPLES

➢ Theapplicantforextensionoftimemustprovesufficientcauseastowhytheparticularstepwasnottak
enwithintheprescribedtime.

EricTibebagavBegumisaSupremeCourtCivilApplicationNo.18/2002;thelawplacesaburde
nofproofupontheapplicanttogive"sufficientreason"whytherewasadelay.

➢ Whatamountstosufficientcauseisamatterforcourt’sdiscretion.
InWilliamOdoiNyandusiVJacksonOyukoKasendiCourtofAppealCivilApplicationNumber0
032Of2018;heldthatfromthereadingofRule5oftherulesoftheJudicatureCourtofAppealRules,thisCo
urthasdiscretiontoenlargethetimewithinwhichapartytoanappealmaydoanactifsufficientreasonissho
wnfortheenlargement.
JuliusRwabinumivs.HopeBahimbisomweCivilApplicationNo.14of2009heldthatwhatconstitut
es“sufficientreason”isamatterthatislefttothediscretionofthecourt.
InBaryaijaJuliusVKikwisireZaverioCourtofAppealCivilApplicationN0.324OF2016held;This
Courthasthediscretion,forsufficientcause,toextendtimeunderrule5oftheJudicature(CourtofAppeal
Rules)Directions,SI13-10.Sufficientcauseshouldrelatetotheinabilitytodoaparticularact.

InShantivsHandocha&others[1973]EA207,209theprincipletobefollowedinapplicationssuchasthi
swaswelllaidoutbySpryV-Pashe.Thenwaswhenhestatedinteralia:

“Thepositionofanapplicantforanextensionoftimeisentirelydifferentfromthatofanapplicantf
orleavetoappeal.Heisconcernedwithshowing“sufficientreason”whyheshouldbegivenmoret
imeandthemostpersuasivereasonthathecanshowisthatthedelayhasnotbeencausedorcontribu
tedtobydilatoryconductonhispart.Buttheremaybeotherreasonsandtheseareallmattersofdegr
ee.Hedoesnotnecessarilyhavetoshowthathisappealhasareasonableprospectofsuccessoreven
thathehasanarguablecasebuthisapplicationislikelytobeviewedmoresympatheticallyifhecan
dosoandifhefailstocomplywiththerequirementsetoutabovehedoessoathisperil”

InMugoandorsvsWanjiruandanor[1970]EA481atp.484DuffPstatedthus;

“Eachapplicationmustbedecidedintheparticularcircumstancesofeachcasebutasageneralrule
theapplicantmustsatisfactorilyexplainthereasonforthedelayandshouldalsosatisfy
InthecaseofMollyKyalukindaandothersvsEngineerEphraimTurinaweandothers;SupremeCo
urtCivilApplicationNo.27of2010Kisaakye,JSCstated3questionstobedeterminedbeforedisposingo
fanapplicationforextensionoftimelikethisone.Theseare:

1. Whethertheapplicanthasestablishedsufficientreasonsforthecourttoextendthetimeinwhichtolod
getheappeal.

2. Whethertheapplicantisguiltyofdilatoryconduct.
3. Whetheranyinjusticewillbecausediftheapplicationisnotgranted.

InWilliamOdoiNyandusiVJacksonOyukoKasendiCourtofAppealCivilApplicationNumbe
r0032Of2018;held;Thestartingpoint,istodeterminewhetherornotsufficientreasonhasbeenshown
forthefailuretoactintime.Indeterminingwhetherornotthisapplicationforextensionoftimewithinw
hichtofileanappealshouldbegrantedundertheaboveRule,theparamountconsiderationisthattheret
heApplicanttofileandserveaNoticeofAppealwithintime.

Theexpression‘sufficientreason’isnotdefinedanywhereintheRules.

InthecaseWilliamOdoiNyandusiVJacksonOyukoKasendiCourtofAppealCivilApplication
Number0032Of2018courtreferredtothecaseofRosetteKizitovAdministratorGeneralandoth
ers,SupremeCourtCivilApplication,No.9of1986,reportedinKampalaLawReports,Volume5of
1993atpage4whereitwasheldthat

‘Sufficientreasonmustrelatetotheinabilityorfailuretotaketheparticularstepintime’.

InNicholasRoussosvGulamhusseinHabibVirani&Another,CivilAppealNo.9of1993
(SC),theSupremeCourtlaiddownsomeofthegroundsorcircumstanceswhichmayamountto“sufficient
cause.”Theyincludemistakebyanadvocatethroughnegligent,ignoranceofprocedurebyanunrepresen
teddefendantandillnessbyaparty.

InBancoArabeEspanolvs.BankofUgandaSCCANo.8/1998,Oder,JSCstatedthat:-

“Thequestionofwhetheran“oversight”,‘mistake”,“negligence”,or“error”,asthecasemaybe,onthep
artofcounselshouldbevisitedonapartytheCounselrepresentsandwhetheritconstitutes“sufficientre
ason”or“sufficientcause”justifyingsufficientremediesfromcourtshasbeendiscussedbycourtsinnu
merousauthorities.Thoseauthoritiesdealwithdifferentcircumstances;andmayrelatetoextensionof
timefordoingaparticularact,frequentlyincaseswheretimehasrunout;someofthemconcernsettinga
sideaDefaultJudgmentasinthepresentcase.Buttheyhaveacommonfeaturewhetherapartyshall,ors
 hallnot,bepermanentlydeprivedoftherightofputtingforwardabonafideclaimordefencebyreasonof
thedefaultofhisprofessionaladvisororadvisor’sclerk.”

InWilliamOdoiNyandusiVJacksonOyukoKasendiCourtofAppealCivilApplication
Number0032Of2018CourtofAppealreferredtothefollowingSupremeCourtAuthorities;
InSabiitiKachopeand3othersvMargaretKamuje,SupremeCourtCivilApplication,No.3
1of1997,OderJSC,(ashethenwas),itwasheldthat:

Torapplicationsofextensionoftimesuchasthepresentone,amistakeorNegligenceoftheapp
licant’sCounselmaybeacceptedasapropergroundforgrantingreliefsuchastheleavetofile
outoftime.ThediscretionofCourtisnotfetteredaslongassufficientreasonhasbeendisclose
dtojustifycourt’sexerciseofitsdiscretioninfavoroftheApplicant.Inthepresentapplication,
theinordinatedelaywascausedbythe

Applicant’spreviousCounsel.Therefore,theApplicantshaveshownsufficientreasontojustify
theCourt’sdiscretionintheirfavor.’

InSeperiaKyamulesiirevJustineBikanshireBagambe,CivilAppealNo.20of1995,
JusticeKarokora,JSC,then,wasoftheviewthat:‘ItisnowsettledthaterrorsoromissionbyCounsel
arenolongerconsideredfataltotheapplicantunderRule4oftheRulesofthisCourtunlessthereisev
idencethattheapplicantwasguiltyofdilatoryconductintheinstructionsofhislawyer.’

Courtthusfoundtheapplicanthadsufficientreasonfornotfilinghisappealintimebecauseitwasasares
ultofthemistakeofhisformerCounselwhomhehadinstructedtofollowupthecaseintheHighCourtbut
failedhimandthemistakeofcounselshouldnotbevisitedontheinnocentlitigant.

InJuliusRwabinumivs.HopeBahimbisomweCivilApplicationNo.14of2009inwhichtheapplicant
ssoughttofiletheirmemorandumofappeal9monthsout25oftimeanditwasheldthatwherethereismist
akeofcounsel,thiscanbeconsideredtobesufficientgroundstograntanextensionoftime...Thatitwo
uldbeagraveinjusticetodenyanapplicantsuchasthisone,topursuehisrightsofappealsimplybecauseoft
heblunderofhislawyerswhenitiswellsettledthatanerrorofcounselshouldnotnecessarilybevisitedonhi
sclient

Conferencing.
Hearing.
Rule99providesforNoticeofhearing.
(1) Theregistrarshallgiveallpartiestoanappealnotlessthanfourteendays’noticeofthedatefixedfor
hearingofanappeal.
(2) Itshallnotbenecessarytogivethenoticeundersubrule(1)ofthisruletoanypartywithwhoseconse
ntthedateforthehearingwasfixed.

100.Appearancesathearingandprocedureonnonappearance.(1)Ifonanyday
fixedforthehearingofanappealinthecourttheappellantdoesnotappear,theappeal
maybedismissedandanycross-
appealmayproceed,unlessthecourtseesfittoadjournthehearing
Procedure;
Fileanapplicationforextensionoftimewithinwhichtoserveanoticeofappealandinstitutetheappeal.Rul
e5,43
Prepareaformalletterrequestingforatypedrecordofproceedings.Rule83(2)
ServetheletterontherespondentRule83(3)
Oncehereceivestypedcopyoftheproceedings,heformulatesgroundsofappealinamemorandumofappe
al;rule86
PreparesarecordofappealwhosecontentismentionedinRule87
Filesthememorandumandtherecordofappealontherespondentwithin60daysofreceiptoftherecord.Ru
le83
Servesthememorandumandtherecordofappealontherespondentwithin7days;Rule88

Documents;
Applicationforextensionoftimetoservethenoticeofappealoutoftimeandextendtimeofinstitutingthea
ppeal.NoticeofMotionRule43andaffidavitinsupportRule44.
Letterrequestingtypedcopyofrecordofproceedings
MemorandumofAppealRecordo
fAppeal.

II. Whetherpaymentofthedecretalsumandtaxedcostscanbestayedonanappeal?

➢ Wherethereisanyexecution,theappellantmayapplyforstayofexecutionpursuanttoRule6oftheCO
URTOFAPPEALRules.

➢ Rule6oftheCOURTOFAPPEALRulesprovidesthatpendencyofanappealisnotabartoexecution.It
followsthereforethatexecutioncanonlybeavoidedbyobtaininganorderofstay.
TherulestatesthattheCourtmay(b)inanycivilproceedings,whereanoticeofappealhasbeenlodgedinac
cordancewithrule76oftheseRules,orderastayofexecution,aninjunction,orastayofproceedingsonsuc
htermsasthecourtmaythinkjust

KCCvNationalPharmacyLtd-
[1979]HCB132(CA)held;thatthependencyofanappealdoesnotofitselfconstituteastayofexecution..

KyambogoUniversityvProfIsaiahOmoloNdiegeCourtofAppeal(CIVIL
APPLICATIONNO.341OF2013

held;Itisthereforeincumbentupontheapplicantineveryapplicationofstayofexecutiontosatisfycourtth
atgroundsexistforgrantofastayofexecution.Theassumptionthatonceapartyhasfiledanappealastayofe
xecutionmustfollowasamatterofcoursehasnolegalbasis

➢TheapplicationforstaymaybelodgedintheHighCourtorintheCOURTOFAPPEALLawrenceMusii

twaKyazzevsEuniceBusingye,SCCANo.18of1990"

Held;ThiscourtwouldprefertheHighCourttodealwiththeapplicationforastayonitsmeritsfirst,beforet
heapplicationismadetotheSupremeCourt.(nowCourtofAppeal).However,iftheHighCourtrefusesto
acceptjurisdiction,orrefusesjurisdictionformanifestlywrongreasons,orthereisgreatdelay,thisCourt
mayinterveneandacceptjurisdictionintheinterestofjustice.

However,rule42oftheCourtofAppealRules(1)wheneveranapplicationmaybemadeeitherinthecourto
rintheHighCourt,itshallbemadefirstinHighCourt.

InKyambogoUniversityvProf.IsaiahOmoloNdiegeCACAno.341of2013,whichwasanapplication
foraninterimstayofexecution,JusticeKakuruheldthat“ItisnowsettledlawthatthiscourtandtheHighCo
urthaveconcurrentjurisdictioninthismatter.Itappearstomethatapplicationsofthisnatureshouldberst
ntheHighCourtasageneralrule,andshouldonlybefiledinthiscourt,whereexceptionalcircumsta
ncesexist”.

Order43rule4(3)oftheCPRprovidesforthegrounds

➢Theapplicantmustprovethefollowing;
1. ThatheorshehaslodgedanoticeofappealandthesamehasbeentransmittedtotheCOURTOFAPPE
AL.
2. Thatheorshehasrequestedforproceedingstoenablehimorherprepareandfiletheappeal.
3. Thatinthemeantimetherespondenthascommencedtheprocessofexecutionofadecreebeingchallen
gedonappeal.
4. Thattheapplicantwillsuffersubstantiallossiftheexecutionisnotstayed.
5. Thatthereliefssoughtonappeal,whichappealismeritorious,arelikelytoberenderednugatoryifasta
yisnotgranted.
6. Thatitisintheinterestofjustice
Dr.AhmedKisuulevGreenlandBankSCCivilApplicationNo.10of2010
Held;Foranapplicationinthiscourtforastayofexecutiontosucceed,theapplicantmustfirstshow,subjec
ttoorderfactsinagivencase,thathe/shehaslodgedanoticeofappeal.Theotherfactstowhichlodgementof
thenoticeofappealissubject,varyfromcasetocasebutincludethefactthattheapplicantwillsufferirrepar
ablelossifastayisnotgranted;thattheapplicant’sappealhasahighlikelihoodofsuccess
ThemostoftencitedauthorityinapplicationofthistypeisLawrenceMusiitwaKyazze-vs-
EuniceBusingye,SCCivilApplicationNo.18of1990,inwhichthiscourtheldthat“Partiesaskingforast
ay”shouldmeetconditionslike:

(1) thatsubstantiallossmayresulttotheapplicantunlesstheorderismade.
(2) thattheapplicationhasbeenmadewithoutunreasonabledelay.
(3) thattheapplicanthasgivensecurityfordueperformanceofthedecreeororderasmayultimatel
ybebindinguponhim.

➢Theapplicantmayfileanapplicationforaninterimorderofstayofexecutionpendingdetermina
tionofthemainapplicationforstay.
Margaret&JoelKatovNuluNalwogaSupremeCourtMisc.App.No.IIof2011Ongrantofin
terimstay,held;

Rule6(2)(b)theRulesprovidesforstayofexecutionwhetherinterimorsubstantive.However,therearedi
fferentprincipleswhichthecourtmustconsiderwhenconsideringaninterimstayandasubstantivestay.

Intheinstantapplicationforaninterimstayofexecution,thecourtinadditiontoconsideringthatanoticeof
appealhasbeenfiledandthereisasubstantiveapplicationhastoconsiderwhethertherearespecialcircum
stanceswarrantingthegrantingofsuchaninterimorder.Anexampleofthatwouldbetheimmediatedestru
ctionofthesuitproperty,IrespectivelyagreewiththefollowingstatementinHwanSungIndustriesLtd

(Supra)"---
foraninterimorderofstay,itsufficestoshowthatasubstantiveapplicationispendingandthatthereisa
seriousthreatofexecutionbeforethehearingofthependingsubstantiveapplication.
Itisnotnecessarytopre-
emptconsiderationofmattersnecessaryindecidingwhetherornottograntthesubstantiveapplication
forstay."

Hon.TheodoreSsekikuuboandothersvTheAttorneyGeneralandothers,SC
ConstitutionalApplicationNo.04of2014wherethisCourtsaid:

“Rule2(2)oftheJudicatureSupremeCourtRulesgivesthisCourtverywidediscretiontomakesu
chordersasmaybenecessarytoachievetheendsofjustice.Oneoftheendsofjusticeistopreservet
herightofappeal.InthecasesofYakoboSenkunguandothersvsCerencioMukasa,SCCivil
ApplicationNo.5of2013andGulianoGargiovsCalaudioCasadiothisCourtstatedthat‘theg
rantingofinterimordersismeanttohelppartiestopreservethestatusquoandthenhavethemainis
suesbetweenthepartiesdeterminedbythefullcourtaspertheRules”

Considerationsforthegrantofaninterimorderofstayofexecutionorinteriminjunctionarewhet
herthereisasubstantiveapplicationpendingandwhetherthereisaseriousthreatofexecutionbef
orehearingofthesubstantiveapplication.Needlesstosay,theremustbeaNoticeofAppeal.SeeH
wangSungIndustriesLtdvs.TajdinHusseinand2Others(SCCANO.19of2008).(theunder
lingwasaddedforemphasis).

CourtfoundthattheapplicantshadnotonlyfiledaNoticeofAppealandrequestedfortherecordproceedin
gsoftheConstitutionalCourt,buttheyhadfiledanapplicationforasubstantivestayofexecutionwhichwa
spendingbeforeCourt.Courtalsoestablishedfromtheaffidavitevidencethattherewasanimminentthrea
tofexpulsionoftheapplicantsfromParliament.Thecourtgrantedtheapplicationonthatbasis.

KyambogoUniversityvProf.IsaiahOmoloNdiege.
AftercitingtheaboveauthoritiesJusticeKennethKakuruwentonasfollows;

Thispositionofthelawhasbeenfollowedbythiscourtinnumerousapplicationsofthisnature.Tha
tthisCourtmustensurethatanappealifsuccessfulisnotrenderednugatory.Inmyviewthisisthem
ostimportantgroundthatcourtmustconsiderinanapplicationofthisnature.

Fromtheabovetheapplicantoughttosatisfythefollowingconditions;

1. ThattheapplicanthaslodgedanoticeofappealinaccordancewithRule76oftheRulesofthisCourt.
2. Thatasubstantiveapplicationforstayofexecutionhasbeenfiledinthiscourtandispendinghearing.
3. Thatthesaidsubstantiveapplicationandtheappealarenotfrivolousandtheyhavealikelihoodofsucc
ess.
4. Thatthereisaseriousandimminentthreatofexecutionofthedecreeororderandthatiftheapplicationis
notgrantedthemainapplicationandtheappealwillberenderednugatory.
5. Thattheapplicationwasmadewithoutunreasonabledelay
6. Theapplicantispreparedtograntsecurityfordueperformanceofthedecree.
7. Thatrefusaltograntthestaywouldinflictgreaterhardshipthanitwouldavoid.