Interim Orders and Execution Validity: Insights from Haruna Sentongo vs. I & M Bank Limited.
- Waboga David
- Nov 3, 2023
- 3 min read

Introduction
In a recent ruling dated November 1, 2023, Justice Christopher Gashirabike provided valuable insights into the legal standing of interim orders and their validity in the case of Haruna Sentongo versus I & M Bank Limited Civil Application No. 1069 of 2023.
This case has shed light on a significant legal question pertaining to interim orders and the circumstances under which they can be vacated. The ruling clarifies the role of a single justice, a panel, and the determination of substantive applications in the lifecycle of an interim order.
Validity of Interim Orders
Justice Gashirabike's ruling addressed the issue of when an interim order's validity comes to an end. He emphasized that an interim order of stay of execution is granted by the court pending the determination of the substantive application for stay. The critical point here is that the validity of an interim order terminates when the substantive application is heard or determined by the court.
Reference to a Panel
The ruling established that an interim order granted by a single justice can only be vacated under two circumstances. Firstly, when a party successfully files a reference to a panel against the decision of a single justice, and the panel hears and determines the reference. Secondly, the interim order is vacated when the substantive application is determined by the court.
Effect of a Panel's Decision
Justice Gashirabike clarified that in the case of a reference, the decision of the panel replaces the decision of the single justice, effectively setting aside the ruling of the single justice, rendering it unauthoritative. This decision reaffirms the principle that a panel's determination takes precedence over a single justice's decision.
Determination of the Substantive Application
In contrast, the determination of the substantive application does not nullify the ruling of the single justice but simply brings the life of the interim order to an end. The ruling of the single justice remains authoritative as far as applications for interim orders are concerned. Thus, when the substantive application is decided, the interim order naturally loses its effectiveness.
Precedent and Legal Authority
Justice Gashirabike cited the authority in "The Registered Trustees of the Hindu Union vs. Kagoro Epimac and 2 Ors Civil Application No. 304 of 2017," where it was held that the taxation of a bill of costs is the first step to realizing the fruits of a judgment. The judge emphasized that execution without taxation would be premature. In the case at hand, the Respondent filed the bill of costs, which is scheduled for a hearing, demonstrating a serious threat of execution.
Conclusion
The recent ruling in Haruna Sentongo versus I & M Bank Limited, as delivered by Justice Christopher Gashirabike on November 1, 2023, has provided essential clarity regarding the validity of interim orders, the role of a single justice versus a panel, and the impact of the determination of substantive applications. This decision reaffirms the hierarchy of authority in the court system and underscores the importance of legal processes in the execution of judgments. It further highlights the need for compliance with taxations of bills of costs as a crucial step in the realization of judgment awards. By Waboga David Follow our Telegram Channel to read the full case https://t.co/bcYpWuNHWy
Disclaimer: This article is presented by Law Point Uganda for general informational purposes only. This article does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Readers are encouraged to seek professional legal counsel for their specific legal concerns or questions. LawPoint Uganda and its authors do not accept any responsibility for any actions or decisions made based on the information provided in this article. Legal matters are complex and can vary based on individual circumstances, so it is crucial to consult with a qualified attorney to address your unique legal needs.
Comments