Wakilii

Munyira & 6 Others v Balyeidhusa (Civil Application 640 of 2024)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 52 · 2025 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for stay of execution pending appeal, heard by a single Justice of Appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed; the decree remains executable pending the 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

A single Justice of Appeal dismissed an application to stay execution of a High Court decree pending appeal. Restating the established conditions, the court held the applicants showed no likelihood of success: a perusal of the lower record supported the trial court's finding that the late Yefusa Munyira and the respondent held 50% of the property as joint tenants, and the proposed appeal disclosed no reasonable basis. The applicants also failed to prove irreparable injury, any loss being monetary rent recoverable from the respondent should the appeal succeed. Stay being available only in exceptional and compelling circumstances, the application was dismissed with costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Facts

The parties are children of the late Yefusa Munyira, who lived on the suit property at Plot 57B, Main Street, Iganga Municipality until his death in 1997. The property had been managed by the Departed Asians Custodian Board. The applicants contend Plot 57B formed part of their late father's estate. The respondent claims sole ownership, having paid off the original Asian owner and bought his rights from the Custodian Board with his partner James Batuka. The High Court at Jinja, in Civil Suits No. 050 of 2013 and No. 68 of 2014, held that the late Yefusa and the respondent owned 50% of Plot 57B as joint tenants, while Batuka held Plot 57A as a tenant in common on the same title. The applicants, having lost, lodged an appeal and sought a stay of execution pending its determination, asserting their relatives occupy the property and would suffer irreparable injury if evicted. The respondent maintained he built shops on the land, that the applicants had collected rent since 2013, and that the appeal was frivolous.

Issues

  1. Whether the application meets the conditions for the grant of an order to stay execution of the decree in Civil Suits No. 050 of 2013 and No. 68 of 2014 pending appeal.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Application is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the Appeal.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for grant pending appeal
An applicant for a stay of execution pending appeal must establish that irreparable damage will be suffered or that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if a stay is refused, that the appeal has a likelihood of success or a prima facie right to appeal, and that the application was brought without delay; where the first two conditions are not met the court considers where the balance of convenience lies.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Likelihood of success — Frivolous appeal
To establish a likelihood of success an applicant must place material before the court that goes beyond a mere assertion that the appeal will succeed; an appeal is frivolous, and the court's inquiry stops there without examining the merits, where its grounds have no reasonable basis in law and cannot be supported by a good faith argument.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Irreparable injury — Monetary and recoverable loss
An applicant does not suffer irreparable injury where any loss occasioned by execution is monetary and recoverable from the successful party should the appeal succeed; a stay of execution, which denies or delays the respondent from enjoying the fruits of the judgment, is granted only in exceptional and compelling circumstances.

Cases cited (6)

  • Theodore Ssekikubo and 3 Others v Attorney General and 4 Others (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Osman Kassim Ramathan v Century Bottling Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2019)
  • Formula Feeds Ltd and Others v KCB Bank Ltd (HCMA No. 647 of 2022)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Kabito Karamaji and DFCU Bank Ltd v Yanjin (U) Company Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1274 of 2023)
  • Stanbic Bank v Atyaba Agencies (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2004)
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.