Wakilii

Omuhereza Basaliza William and Others v National Forestry Authority (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 146 of 2020)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 353 · 2025 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by Notice of Motion to a single Justice of the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution pending an intended appeal to the Supreme Court
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed; the gazetted forest reserve remains under the control of the Respondent pending the Supreme Court appeal

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

On an application for a stay of execution pending a Supreme Court appeal, the single Justice applied the settled conditions in Theodore Ssekikubo v Attorney General. Although the applicants showed an arguable pending appeal and had acted promptly, they failed to prove irreparable injury, relying only on bare assertions of re-entry and occupation without supporting evidence. Their re-entry onto the suit land was irregular and a stay could not be used to preserve an illegality. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent, which has a statutory mandate to protect the gazetted Buhungiro Central Forest Reserve. The Court declined to exercise its discretion and dismissed the application with costs.

Facts

The applicants were plaintiffs in High Court Civil Suit No. 25 of 2013, claiming to be lawful customary owners of land they said they had inherited from their grandparents since the 1940s, and alleging unlawful eviction by the respondent. The respondent contended the land formed part of the gazetted Buhungiro Central Forest Reserve. The High Court found for the applicants, but on appeal the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2019, set aside the lower decree, held the entire land to be part of the forest reserve, found the customary ownership claim fraudulent, and ordered cancellation of the freehold title. The applicants filed a Notice of Appeal and Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2020, then brought this application six days after judgment seeking to stay execution. They asserted they had re-entered and occupied the land, while the respondent asserted the applicants had left and the land was regenerating into natural forest.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for the grant of a stay of execution pending the determination of their intended appeal to the Supreme Court.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
  • The costs shall abide the outcome of Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2020.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
A stay of execution pending appeal will be granted only where the applicant establishes a prima facie case or likelihood of success on appeal and that irreparable damage will result or the appeal be rendered nugatory if a stay is refused; where these are not established the court considers the balance of convenience, and in every case the application must be brought without delay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Irreparable Injury — Burden of Proof
Irreparable injury means substantial or material injury that cannot be adequately compensated in damages, and an applicant who relies solely on bare averments of occupation, without documentary or independent proof of occupation, developments, or specific probable harm, fails to substantiate this essential ground.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Balance of Convenience — Preservation of Status Quo
A court will not exercise its discretion to grant a stay of execution where doing so would validate or preserve an illegality; an irregular re-entry onto land does not establish a status quo worthy of protection, and the balance of convenience favours a party with a statutory mandate to protect the subject matter.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions (S.I. 13-10) Rule 2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions (S.I. 13-10) Rule 6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions (S.I. 13-10) Rule 41(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions (S.I. 13-10) Rule 42(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions (S.I. 13-10) Rule 43
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions (S.I. 13-10) Rule 44(1)
  • Judicature Act (Cap. 16) s.37
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 282) s.98
  • National Forestry and Tree Planting Act

Cases cited (2)

  • Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Another [2013] UGSC 21
  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd [1973] EA 358
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.