Kakeeto Muhamood aka Sseka Mutu v Idi Saupe Sekaddu (Civil Application No 565 of 2025)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 107 · 2026 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application for stay of execution pending intended appeal to the Supreme Court

Decision

Application succeeds; stay of execution granted pending determination of the intended appeal to the Supreme Court

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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 stay of execution pending an intended appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal held that the applicant had filed a Notice of Appeal and requested proceedings, so an appeal was pending. The issues raised — the characterisation of the parties' relationship as a partnership and the identification of partnership property — were arguable, the absence of a draft memorandum of appeal not being fatal given Article 126(2)(e). Because the court's orders set in motion valuation, accounting and distribution of partnership assets that could irreversibly affect proprietary and livelihood interests, the applicant showed a real risk of substantial loss and that the appeal would be rendered nugatory. The balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo. Stay granted.

Facts

The applicant sued the respondent in the Commercial Division of the High Court (HCCS No. 379 of 2020) over a dispute concerning an alleged partnership, and judgment was entered in his favour. On the respondent's appeal (Civil Appeal No. 0356 of 2022), the Court of Appeal partially allowed it and set aside aspects of the High Court judgment. In doing so the court declared that a partnership existed between the parties from 2009, identified various properties as partnership assets, ordered equal sharing of the assets and profits, and appointed the Official Receiver to supervise valuation, accounting and distribution of the partnership assets. The applicant, dissatisfied, filed a Notice of Appeal and requested certified proceedings with a view to appealing to the Supreme Court, and sought a stay of execution pending that appeal, asserting that the valuation and distribution process risked the irreversible loss of his home and means of livelihood.

Issues

Whether the applicant had taken the necessary steps to initiate an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Whether the intended appeal raises arguable issues warranting the Supreme Court's consideration.
Whether the applicant would suffer substantial loss or the appeal would be rendered nugatory if a stay of execution is not granted.
Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of a stay of execution.
Whether the application was premature in the absence of commenced execution proceedings.

Orders

An order of stay of execution of the judgment and orders of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 0356 of 2022 is granted pending the hearing and final determination of the Applicant's intended appeal to the Supreme Court.
The orders relating to the valuation, accounting, and distribution of the partnership assets under the supervision of the Official Receiver are stayed.
The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the intended appeal.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution Pending Appeal — Governing Principles

On an application for stay of execution pending appeal under Rule 6(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the court exercises a discretionary jurisdiction judicially: the applicant must show that the intended appeal is arguable, that he will suffer substantial loss or that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if a stay is refused, and, where doubt exists, that the balance of convenience favours the grant.

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Arguability of Intended Appeal

At the stay stage the court does not determine the merits of the intended appeal; the test is whether the appeal raises a bona fide issue. The absence of a draft memorandum of appeal is not in itself fatal where the grounds can be discerned from the affidavit and submissions, the court being enjoined to consider substance over form under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss and Nugatory Effect

Orders setting in motion the valuation, accounting and distribution of assets, though not directing immediate attachment or sale, directly affect proprietary interests; where such a process may not easily be reversible and may alter the subject matter of the dispute, the applicant demonstrates a real risk of substantial loss and that the appeal would be rendered nugatory.

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Balance of Convenience

A successful litigant's entitlement to the fruits of his judgment must be balanced against the right of appeal and the need to ensure it is not rendered illusory; where the orders involve restructuring and distribution of business assets and the respondent's prejudice can be met by costs, the balance of convenience favours preserving the subject matter pending appeal.

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Prematurity and Pre-emptive Relief

An application for stay is not necessarily premature merely because no formal execution proceedings have commenced; where the court's orders set in motion a process capable of affecting the applicant's rights, the applicant is entitled to approach the court pre-emptively to preserve the subject matter.

Legislation cited (5)

Judicature Act s.12(1)
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.2(2)
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.44(2)
Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)

Cases cited (1)

Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)

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.