Mohammed Mohamed Hamid v Roko Construction Ltd (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 23 OF 2017) [2017] UGSC 39 (16 August 2017);


Search Summary: 

This was an application for an interim stay of
execution pending a hearing and disposal of
the main application for stay of execution. The
background is that the parties entered a

contract for construction which the applicant
breached and the matter was resolved through
arbitration which the applicant contested in a
high court and the court of appeal and the
supreme court. The applicant filed for a review
of the supreme court decision and the stay of
the execution of the decree and the interim stay
of execution. At the hearing, the respondent
raised a preliminary objection that the
respondent had not been served with the
substantive application, that he hadn’t been
served with the list of authorities and that the
affidavit hadn’t been deponed by an advocate.

Headnote and Holding: 

The court ruled that the deponent didn’t have
to be an advocate, that the non-service was
good practice but not fatal and that the non-
On the merits of the application, the court held
that Court has a wide discretion to make such
orders as may be necessary to achieve the ends
of justice. That The granting of interim orders
is meant to help the parties to preserve the
status quo and then have the main issues
between them determined by the full court as
per the Rules. That the criteria for the
application of stay was not complied with as
the notice of the application for review didn’t
amount to a notice of appeal and that there
hadn’t been an imminent threat of execution.


Subscribe to RSS - Strike-Out