Wakilii

Kasifa Nambi and Another v Maria Specioza Mukasa (Civil Application No 610 of 2024)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 263 · 2025 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for a stay of execution pending the determination of a pending civil appeal
Decision
Stay of execution granted pending the final determination of Civil Appeal No. 191 of 2024

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 considered whether the applicants met the conditions for a stay of execution pending their appeal. Applying the principles in Kyazze and Ssekikubo, the court found the applicants had lodged a notice and record of appeal and faced an imminent threat of execution, shown by the respondent depositing bricks and sand and commencing construction on the disputed land while its boundaries remained unascertained, causing substantial loss and rendering the appeal nugatory. The court rejected the argument that no threat existed merely because the bill of costs was untaxed, holding a judgment may be enforced in several ways. The application succeeded and execution was stayed pending Civil Appeal No. 191 of 2024.

Facts

The respondent sued the applicants in the Chief Magistrates Court of Entebbe (Civil Suit No. 26 of 2013), alleging trespass and seeking vacant possession of land at Namulanda (Busiro Block 401 Plots 843 and 844). The magistrate dismissed both the suit and the applicants' counterclaim. On appeal, the High Court Land Division (Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2017) ruled in the respondent's favour on 6 March 2024, declaring her owner of a portion of the land by adverse possession since 27 June 1997 and ordering extinction of the applicants' interest in that portion. The applicants lodged a notice of appeal and filed Civil Appeal No. 191 of 2024 in the Court of Appeal; their earlier High Court applications for stay had been dismissed. Following the High Court judgment, the respondent began depositing bricks and sand and commenced construction on the suit land while its boundaries remained unascertained. The applicants brought this application to stay execution pending their appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for the grant of an order for stay of execution pending the determination of their appeal.
  2. Whether the applicants would suffer substantial or irreparable loss, and the appeal be rendered nugatory, unless a stay was granted.
  3. Whether there was an imminent threat of execution where the respondent's bill of costs had not been taxed.

Orders

  • An order for stay of execution is granted, restraining the respondent from executing the judgment and orders of the High Court in Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2017 until the final determination of Civil Appeal No. 191 of 2024.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
A court may grant a stay of execution where the applicant establishes a likelihood of success or a prima facie right to appeal, that irreparable damage will result or the appeal be rendered nugatory if a stay is refused, that the balance of convenience favours a stay, and that the application was brought without delay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Meaning of Substantial Loss
Substantial loss does not denote any particular size or amount but refers to any loss, great or small, that is of real worth or value as distinguished from a loss that is merely nominal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Threat of Execution — Untaxed Bill of Costs
An imminent threat of execution is not negated merely because the decree-holder has not taxed a bill of costs, since a judgment may be enforced in several ways; acts such as taking possession and building on the suit land can themselves constitute execution of the court's orders.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10 r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10 r.76
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10 r.2(2)
  • Evidence Act s.92

Cases cited (4)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businge (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Theodore Sekikubo and others vs Attorney General Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2023)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
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.