Court name
Commercial Court of Uganda
Case number
High Court Miscellaneous Application-2007/611
Judgment date
6 December 2007

Uganda Micro Finance Ltd v Sebuufu Richard (High Court Miscellaneous Application-2007/611) [2007] UGCommC 101 (06 December 2007);

Cite this case
[2007] UGCommC 101
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA


IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
COMMERCIAL COURT DIVISION


HCT-00-CC-MA-0611 2007
(ARISING FROM HCT-00-CC-MA-0610-2007 AND HCT-00-CC-CS-901-2004)
 

 

UGANDA MICRO FINANCE UNION …………………..…                                                                                                                .APPLICANT

 

 

VERSUS
 

 

SEBUUFU RICHARD &……………..………..……..…                                                                                                                          RESPONDENT

 

 

BEFORE HON MR. JUSTICE LAMECK N. MUKASA
 

 

RULING:
 

 

 

This is an application by chamber summons under Order 22 rules 23 (I) and 89 (I) of the Civil Procedure Rules for orders that:-

(a)     

 

An order for stay of execution doth issue restraining the respondents, their agents and / or servants from executing an Order in Civil Suit No. 901 of 2004 pending the determination of the Applicant’ application for re-instatement of the suit, Misc. application No. 610 of 2007.
(b)      The costs of this Application be provided for.

Section 27 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the costs of any action, cause or other matter or issue shall follow the event unless the court or judge shall for goods reason otherwise order. On 14th September 2006 Civil Suit No. 901 of 2004 was dismissed for want of prosecution and the 2nd Respondent, who was the 2nd defendant, was awarded costs. Any execution of that dismissal order would be for costs awarded to the 2nd respondent.

This application was filed on the same day Misc. application No. 610 of 2007 was filed. Both applications were heard the same day. In my ruling in Misc Application No. 610 of 2007 I allowed the application and set aside the dismissal order of Civil Suit No. 901 of 2004 of 14th September 2006. The effect is that the order as to costs is also set aside and thus ceases to be subject for execution.

In the circumstances, without considering further the merits of this application, I find that the application has been overtaken by events. To make an order of stay in the circumstances will not serve any purpose as it will be in a vacuum. The application is accordingly struck out. The order as to costs in the main suit shall bind the cause of this application.

I so order






 
Hon. Mr. Justice Lameck N. Mukasa
Judge
7/12/2007