Wakilii

Kituuma-Magala & Co. Advocates v J.W. Inter Services Limited & Another (Civil Application 14 of 2024)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 61 · 2025 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of a civil appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs

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 Court of Appeal (single judge) dismissed an application to stay execution of High Court orders pending appeal. Although the applicant had lodged a valid notice of appeal, it satisfied only some of the requisite conditions: ground one of the appeal raised a prima facie arguable point, but ground two was frivolous and vexatious. The applicant failed to show it would suffer irreparable or substantial loss, since any loss was a quantified money decree compensable in damages and execution would not render the appeal nugatory. The application was also brought a year and nine days after judgment, amounting to undue delay. No sufficient cause having been shown, the application failed and was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The substantive dispute arose from a tenancy agreement between the first respondent (landlord) and the applicant law firm (tenant). After the applicant fell into rent arrears, the second respondent (the landlord's property manager) locked the demised premises housing the applicant's chambers. The applicant sued in Civil Suit No. 260 of 2017 seeking declarations that the locking and seizure of its files and property were unlawful, plus damages of about UGX 1.32 billion. The respondents counterclaimed for unpaid rent of US$ 28,830 and damages. On 21 August 2023 the High Court dismissed the applicant's suit with costs for failure to prosecute after repeated adjournments and non-compliance with directions, and ordered the counterclaim to proceed ex parte. Judgment on the counterclaim was delivered on 9 January 2024 with a decree for payment of money. The applicant filed a notice of appeal and then sought a stay of execution in the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of an order for a stay of execution pending appeal.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant to pay the costs of the application.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution Pending Appeal — Conditions for Grant
An applicant for a stay of execution must show a valid notice of appeal lodged in accordance with the rules, an appeal with a prima facie likelihood of success, that substantial or irreparable loss will result if the stay is refused (or that the appeal would be rendered nugatory), and that the application was brought without unreasonable delay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Prima Facie Case — Frivolous and Vexatious Grounds
At the stay stage an applicant need not demonstrate the probable success of the appeal; it suffices to show arguable grounds that merit consideration and that the appeal is not frivolous and vexatious, a frivolous suit being one that lacks legal basis or merit.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial or Irreparable Loss
Substantial loss is loss that cannot be quantified by monetary compensation or computed by an exact mathematical formula; where execution of a quantified money decree can be reversed by repayment if the appeal succeeds, the loss is compensable in money and is not irreparable, and execution will not render the appeal nugatory.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Undue Delay
An application for a stay of execution brought a year and nine days after delivery of the impugned judgment cannot be said to have been brought without undue delay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance of Decree
There is no requirement under the rules for an applicant to deposit security for due performance of a decree before a court may grant a stay; the court has discretion to order such security as it considers just, and the deposit prescribed under rule 105(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules is security for the costs of the appeal, not security for due performance of the decree.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.6(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.76
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.105(1)
  • Judicature Act Cap.16 r.11
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.29(1)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.44(c)

Cases cited (12)

  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Dr. Ahmed Muhammed Kisuule v Greenland Bank (In Liquidation) (Civil Application No. 7 of 2010)
  • China Henan International Cooperation Company Ltd v Justus Kyabahwa (Civil Application No. 721 of 2020)
  • Baguma Patrick v Sanyu Phiona (Civil Application No. 452 of 2023)
  • Orute Aloysius and Others v Alupo Esther (Civil Application No. 960 of 2023)
  • Prince Charles Matovu Simbwa and Another v Kyasa Fred and Another (Civil Application No. 1049 of 2023)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Besigye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Beeline Travel Care (U) Ltd and Another v Finance Trust Bank (Civil Application No. 67 of 2023)
  • Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter and 5 Others [2013] eKLR
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (in liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Attorney General v Paul K. Ssemogerere and 2 Others (Constitutional Application No. 2 of 2004)
  • Margaret Kato and Another v Nuulu Nalwoga (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2011)
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.