Wakilii

Nabagala v Sekabere & Another (Civil Application 260 of 2024)

Court of Appeal · [2024] UGCA 290 · 2024 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution pending the determination of a second appeal
Decision
Application granted; stay of execution ordered pending appeal, conditional on deposit of UGX 35,000,000 as security for due performance within 30 days

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The single Justice held that the applicant satisfied the conditions for a stay of execution: she had a prima facie appeal, she was likely to suffer irreparable loss and the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the disputed land were lost through execution, and the application was filed without unreasonable delay. The court held that security for due performance is not a precondition to granting a stay but a discretionary rule of practice to protect the judgment creditor. It granted the stay conditionally, ordering the applicant to deposit UGX 35,000,000 as security, reducing the respondents' proposed UGX 50,000,000 as exaggerated.

Facts

The applicant and the first respondent are siblings, each claiming to have inherited land at Nanziga, Nsangi, Mpigi District from their late father. On 5 May 2015 the applicant sold the suit land to the second respondent, Kateregga Damian, for UGX 8,500,000. After the first respondent protested the sale, the second respondent sold the land to the first respondent on 27 May 2016 for UGX 10,000,000. The applicant then re-entered the land, and the first respondent sued her for trespass in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Mpigi at Nsangi (Civil Suit No. 003 of 2017). The trial court entered judgment for the first respondent and dismissed the applicant's counterclaim. Her first appeal to the High Court was dismissed for want of prosecution, reinstated, and then dismissed on the merits with costs. Her High Court application for stay of execution was also dismissed. She filed a second appeal (Civil Appeal No. 288 of 2023) and brought this application for a stay pending its determination, the land remaining in her occupation and used for commercial farming.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. Whether the applicant should be ordered to deposit security for due performance of the decree, and in what amount.

Orders

  • An order for stay of execution is granted pending the disposal of Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 288 of 2023.
  • The Applicant shall deposit UGX 35,000,000 on the account of this Court, being security for due performance of the decree, within thirty (30) days from the date of this ruling, failing which the Respondents shall be at liberty to execute the orders of the lower Courts.
  • The costs of this application shall abide by the outcome of Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 288 of 2023.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
An applicant for a stay of execution pending appeal must establish that the appeal has chances of success, that irreparable damage will be suffered or the appeal rendered nugatory if the stay is refused, and that the application was made without unreasonable delay; where the first two conditions are not established the court considers where the balance of convenience lies.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Nugatory Appeal — Land in Applicant's Occupation
Where the subject matter of the appeal is land in the applicant's occupation, execution that would dispossess the applicant is likely to cause irreparable loss and to render a successful appeal nugatory, justifying a stay of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance
There is no requirement under the Court of Appeal Rules that an applicant deposit security for due performance of a decree before the court may grant a stay of execution; the imposition of security is a discretionary rule of practice based on case law, intended to protect the judgment creditor should the appeal fail.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.5(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.43
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.76
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.75

Cases cited (9)

  • Margaret Kato and Joel Kato v Nuulu Nalwoga (Civil Application No. 11 of 2021)
  • Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkundiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2014)
  • Katungulu John Matovu and 2 Others v Godfrey Rwabuganda (Civil Application No. 9 of 2021)
  • Lawrence Musitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kawanga v Namparo and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2017)
  • Augustine Mukiibi v Hosana Evangelistic Mission and Others (Civil Application No. 295 of 2017)
  • Francis Hansio Micar v Nuwa Walakira (Civil Application No. 9 of 1990)
  • Hon. Ssekikubo and Another v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Osman Kassim Ramathan v Century Bottling Co. Ltd (Civil Application No. 35 of 2019)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.