Wakilii

Opua v Zawedde (through her lawful attorney Balikudembe Joseph) (Civil Application 694 of 2024)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 64 · 2025 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution pending appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed; the contempt order of the High Court stands and is enforceable

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 dismissed the application for a stay of execution pending appeal. Although the Notice of Appeal had been lodged without undue delay, the applicant placed no material before the court to show the appeal had a likelihood of success, the most important condition. He also failed to prove irreparable injury, since the perimeter wall ordered to be demolished was, on his own account, built by a third party. The court further held that a party in contempt of valid court orders cannot be heard on a related matter until he purges the contempt, and the court's inherent powers cannot be invoked to compound contemptuous conduct.

Facts

The applicant had earlier sued the respondent over encroachment on an access road on land at Kyanja (Block 195 plot 5025) and obtained a temporary injunction maintaining the status quo. In Miscellaneous Application No. 821 of 2023, the applicant himself was found to be in contempt of that injunction for erecting a structure during its subsistence. The High Court ordered him to restore the land by demolishing the illegal structure, pay exemplary damages of UGX 10,000,000 with 5% interest, pay a fine of UGX 10,000,000 for contempt, and pay costs. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 426 of 2024) and, after his stay application in the High Court was dismissed, brought this application for a stay of execution pending the appeal. He contended that the wall to be demolished was built by a neighbouring business and that demolition threatened his pre-existing hotel.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant diligently lodged the Notice of Appeal without undue delay.
  2. Whether the intended appeal raises triable issues with a strong likelihood of success.
  3. Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable damage, or the appeal be rendered nugatory, if a stay of execution is not granted.
  4. Whether an applicant who has been found to be in contempt of court orders may be heard on a related matter before purging the contempt.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

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 a likelihood of success, that he will suffer irreparable damage or the appeal will be rendered nugatory if the stay is refused, that the balance of convenience favours a stay where those conditions are not met, and that the application was filed without undue delay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success on Appeal
The likelihood of success of the intended appeal is the most important consideration on an application for a stay of execution; the applicant must place evidence before the court to demonstrate that likelihood, though he need not prove that the appeal will in fact succeed.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Irreparable Injury
Irreparable injury does not mean injury that is physically impossible to repair, but injury or damage that is substantial or material and that cannot be adequately atoned for in damages.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Filing of Notice of Appeal
The mere filing of a notice of appeal does not entitle an applicant to a stay of execution as a matter of course; an appeal may be determined without the court having to grant a stay.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Purging Before Being Heard
A party in contempt of valid court orders cannot be heard in a different but related cause or matter unless and until he or she purges the contempt; the inherent powers of the court cannot be invoked to compound contemptuous conduct but only to avert it and prevent further abuse of the court process.

Legislation cited (4)

  • 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.43
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, S.I. 13-10 r.44
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, S.I. 13-10 r.76

Cases cited (13)

  • Lawrence Musitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Orute and 4 Others v. Alupo [UCCA] 24 l3t January 2024
  • Theodore Ssekikubo & 3 Others v Attorney General & 4 Others [2013] UGSC 21
  • Kyambogo University v Professor Isiah Omolo Ndiege [2023] UGCA 354
  • Stanbic Bank Limited v Atyaba Agencies Limited [2004] UGCA 23
  • Kassim Ranathan v Century Bottling Company [2020] UGSC 35
  • Pan African Insurance Company (U) Ltd v International Air Transport Association [2008] UGCommC 24
  • Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkundiye [2015] UGSC 7
  • Obwana Remegio v The Registered Trustees of Tororo Diocese [2021] UGCA 84
  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co [1973] EA 358
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd v Edward Musisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 188 of 2010)
  • Mutungi & Another v Rubadiri & Others [2024] UGCA 63
  • Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Attorney General [2022] UGCA 226
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.