Wakilii

Nakaliisa Juliet and Another v Ssebaduka Joweria (Miscellaneous Application No. 562 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 265 · 2026 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal from Mengo Chief Magistrate's Court eviction order
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed; execution of eviction order may proceed

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 High Court dismissed an application for stay of execution pending appeal from an eviction order. Although the applicants established a pending appeal with arguable grounds, an imminent threat of execution, and filed without unreasonable delay, the court held they failed to demonstrate irreparable damage. The court found that rental expenditure and property improvements were quantifiable in monetary terms and therefore did not constitute irreparable damage warranting a stay.

Facts

The applicants were tenants of commercial premises at Bunamwaya along Wankulukuku Road under a six-year tenancy agreement at UGX 700,000 per month. They paid UGX 43,500,000 covering five years in advance and made improvements to the premises exceeding UGX 150,000,000. The respondent landlord gave six months' notice to vacate. On 5 February 2026, Mengo Chief Magistrate's Court ordered the applicants to vacate within 30 days. The applicants filed an appeal on 23 February 2026. On 18 March 2026, they were served with a three-day eviction notice. They filed this application on 19 March 2026 seeking to stay execution pending appeal. The respondent opposed, stating the applicants had not paid rent since June 2025, causing her monthly losses of UGX 3,000,000.

Issues

  1. Whether the application discloses sufficient grounds for the grant of an order of stay of execution?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.
  • Preliminary objection regarding late filing of applicants' submissions overruled.
  • No security for due performance of decree ordered.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Irreparable Damage
An applicant seeking stay of execution pending appeal must demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable damage if the decree is executed. Damage that is quantifiable in monetary terms does not constitute irreparable damage. Rental expenditure and property improvements are quantifiable in monetary compensation and therefore do not satisfy the irreparable damage requirement.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Test to be Applied
In an application for stay of execution, the applicant must establish: (a) a pending appeal with likelihood of success; (b) a serious or imminent threat of execution; (c) that the applicant will suffer irreparable damage and the appeal will be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted; (d) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (e) security for due performance of the decree where appropriate.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Late Filing of Submissions — Substantive Justice
Where written submissions are filed out of time but the opposing party has filed submissions in reply and suffered no prejudice, the court may invoke Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution and Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to allow the late submissions in the interest of substantive justice over technicalities.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Judicature Act Cap. 16 s.33
  • Judicature Act Cap. 16 s.37
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 43 rule 4
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 15 rule 5(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 28
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 126(2)(e)

Cases cited (12)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Uganda Telecom Limited v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2017)
  • Kasaala Growers Co-operative Society v Kakooza Jonathan and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2010)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Olivia da Ritta Siqueira E Facho Vs Siqueira [1933] 15 KLR 34
  • Jadva Karsan Vs Harnam Singh Bhogal [1953] 20 EACA 74
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and 3 Others v the Attorney General and 4 Others (Supreme Court Constitutional Application No. 06 of 2013)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v East African Property Holding Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 144 of 2014)
  • Eriabu Kabigiza Vs Lawrence Sserwanja [1975] HCB 199
  • Giella Vs Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358
  • Robert Kavuma v Hotel International Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 08 of 1990)
  • Joel Kato v Nuulu Nalwoga (Supreme Court 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.