Wakilii

Damalie Namakula Bisobye v Byakusaaga Bisobye Ssebulime Kyeyune Bikosojo and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 548 of 2025)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 4 · 2026 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 determination of an application to set aside a consent settlement agreement
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed; the application was held to be of no effect as the suit property had already been sold and transferred through completed execution

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 the Court of Appeal refused a stay of execution. The applicant sought to stay execution pending an application to set aside a consent settlement under which Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2024 had been withdrawn. The court held there was no appeal in existence to preserve, the underlying application to set aside had little likelihood of success, no evidence of the alleged duress or threats was adduced, and execution had already been completed in 2022 with the suit property sold and transferred to an innocent third party who was not a party to the proceedings. There being no execution to stay and the proper remedy being reinstatement of the withdrawn appeal, the application was dismissed with costs to the 2nd respondent.

Facts

The applicant, wife of the 1st respondent, sought to stay execution against property she said was their matrimonial home. The 1st respondent had pledged the property as security for a loan from the 2nd respondent and defaulted. Following a consent judgment in Civil Suit No. 69 of 2022, the property was attached and sold under a warrant of attachment and transferred to M/s Bless a Child Foundation, a third party. During appellate mediation in Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2024, the applicant and 1st respondent signed a consent settlement agreement on 1 November 2024 withdrawing the appeal and undertaking to refund UGX 700,000,000 to the purchaser by 30 June 2025. They refunded only part of the sum and defaulted, leading to an eviction order on 25 September 2025. The applicant then filed an application to set aside the consent settlement, alleging she signed it under threats and duress from the 1st respondent, and the present application to stay execution pending its determination.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant adduced sufficient reasons to justify the grant of an order for a stay of execution.

Orders

  • The order for stay of execution is declined.
  • The application is dismissed with costs to the 2nd respondent.
  • The 1st respondent is not awarded costs of the application, having conceded to it.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for grant under Rule 6(2)(b)
An applicant for a stay of execution must establish that a notice of appeal has been lodged, that the appeal has a likelihood of success or a prima facie right to appeal, that irreparable damage will be suffered or the appeal rendered nugatory if a stay is not granted, where the balance of convenience lies, and that the application was instituted without delay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Absence of a subsisting appeal
Where an appeal has been withdrawn by consent of the parties, there is no appeal in existence and a stay of execution cannot be granted to preserve it; the applicant must instead demonstrate by clear evidence that the application from which the stay arises has reasonable or high prospects of success.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Completed execution leaves nothing to stay
Where execution has already been completed and the decretal property sold and transferred to a new registered proprietor, an application for stay of execution is of no effect as there is no subsisting execution to stay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Prejudice to an innocent third party
A stay of execution will be refused where granting it would prejudice the interests of an innocent third party who is the current registered proprietor of the suit property and was not a party to the proceedings, as substantial loss would instead fall on that third party.
Civil Procedure — Withdrawn Appeal — Proper remedy is reinstatement
The proper remedy where parties have withdrawn an appeal by consent is to apply for reinstatement of the withdrawn appeal, which the court has discretion to grant or dismiss, rather than to apply to set aside the withdrawal.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 282 s.98
  • 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 Act, Cap. 16 s.12

Cases cited (5)

  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Gaster Lule v Sam Kibedde (Civil Application No. 1 of 2013)
  • Gashumba Mamiraguha v Sam Nkundiye (Civil Application No. 0024 of 2015)
  • Hon. Sekikubo & 3 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 0006 of 2013)
  • Gladys Mukula v Rosemary Nabukenya (Civil Application No. 211 of 2020)
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.