East Africa Law Society Vs The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda
| Case Number | REF NO. 7 of 2012 |
| Summary | The case centres around the question whether the Court should stay proceedings in Reference No. 3 of 2011 pending the determination of Appeal No. 2 of 2012, which was pending before the Appellate Division of this Court.
|
| Respondent | East Africa Law Society |
| Complainant | The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda |
| Date filed | December 5, 2012 |
| Countries | Uganda |
| Keyword | Jurisdiction |
| Treaty Article | Rule 1 , Rule 21 |
First Instance Judgment
| Verdict | We have carefully considered the evidence and submissions of the parties to this Application and we opine as follows:
This Application was brought under Rules 1(2), and 21(1) of the Rules.
Rule 1 (2) in particular reads as follows:
“Nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.”
It is clear that the inherent power in granting or refusing the stay of proceedings derives from this Rule.
We share the Respondent’s view that this Application should have been raised at the Scheduling Conference and that would also have saved time. In the interest of justice, however, this Court must consider the other factors to grant or to dismiss the application.
he first is the possibility of conflicting decisions. It is our considered view that a stay may be granted where there are multiple proceedings pending in both Divisions of the Court and the decision of the Appellate Division might affect the outcome of the other proceedings. In the instant Application, we think that due to the nexus between both References as shown above, the outcome of Appeal No. 2 of 2012 might have an impact on Reference No. 3 of 2011. At this stage we cannot say that such impact will be substantial or not, but it suffices that we foresee an impact. We believe that a common sense justification to a stay such as is sought here, is to aim at avoiding conflicting decisions and the possibility of rendering some of them nugatory. Consequently we find it prudent to await for the outcome of Appeal No 2 of 2012.
The second consideration is balance of convenience. The questions which the Appellate Division is handling in Appeal No. 2 of 2012 do overlap some aspects of
Reference No. 3 of 2011 as shown elsewhere above while discussing the nexus between the two cases. The balance of convenience, in our view, lies in favour of all
parties. It is therefore in the interest of good and equitable justice for this Court to await their determination by the higher Court.
We are comforted by the same approach taken by Justice Adamu Dalhatu of the Court of Appeal of Lagos, Nigeria in CA/L/255/05 MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA
UNLIMITED V. HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS OBA YINUSA A. A where he stated:
“...it will be futile to allow the proceedings at the lower Court to continue while an appeal is before this court challenging its jurisdiction to hear and
determine the suit against them at the lower court. At the end of the day, if their appeal hereat succeeds, the whole proceedings of the lower court will
be declared a nullity and be struck out however well conducted it might have been. It is therefore necessary to avoid this undesirable result by ordering a stay of proceedings in the present case pending the determination of the appeal against the trial court jurisdiction.”
We are in complete agreement with the sentiments of the learned Judge.
The final consideration is one of injury. We do not see any injury to the Respondent which cannot be adequately compensated if this Application is granted. If there is one, like the delay to dispose of the Reference as argued by the Respondent, it would be compensated later by the final disposal of the Reference after the outcome of the Appeal is known and taken into consideration.
We are also fortified by this Court’s position in Reference No. 3 of 2010, (The Independent Medical Legal Unit case) where, on a similar question, we held as
follows:
“This Court has discretion to stay proceedings for sufficient cause. ... We nevertheless find that in the circumstances of this case, the delay is not
fatal. We are of the view that an appeal on grounds of jurisdiction of this Division to the Appellate Division should be disposed of first before we
can comfortably proceed to determine the Reference on the merits because jurisdiction is the matter that goes to the root of the Reference.”
We reiterate the above findings as applicable in the circumstances of the Application now before us.
In view of the foregoing, we find that despite the possible delay, it is nevertheless appropriate to await the outcome of the aforesaid Appeal. The interest of justice would be better served by granting a stay and we accordingly grant the Application as prayed.
Costs thereof shall abide the outcome of Appeal No. 2 of 2012.
It is so ordered. |
| PDF document | Download the decision as PDF
|
| Date delivered | February 14, 2013 |
| Quorum | |
Appeal Judgment
| Verdict | |
| PDF document | |
| Date delivered | |
| Quorum | |
