Wakilii

Abdu Salam Lubowa v Musa Lubega (Miscellaneous Application No. 2481 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 418 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal from High Court judgment in Civil Suit No. 984 of 2000
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed; Respondent entitled to execute the decree in HCCS No. 984 of 2000

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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

The High Court dismissed an application for stay of execution pending appeal, holding that the applicant failed to satisfy the essential conditions for a stay. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated substantial or irreparable loss, had filed the application with unreasonable delay (approximately one year and ten months after judgment), and that the balance of convenience favoured the respondent who held a valid judgment declaring him the lawful owner of the suit land.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed; Respondent entitled to execute the decree in HCCS No. 984 of 2000

Facts

The Applicant was the unsuccessful party in HCCS No. 984 of 2000, decided on 1 February 2024, which found that the Respondent was the rightful owner of suit land at Nansana Village, Kyadondo. The Applicant filed Civil Appeal No. 109 of 2024 challenging the judgment. On 17 November 2025, the court granted a consequential eviction order in Misc. Application No. 545 of 2025, directing the Applicant to vacate the suit land after one month's notice. The Respondent issued an eviction notice dated 26 November 2025. The Applicant then filed this application on 5 December 2025 seeking a stay of execution pending the appeal. The Respondent contended that the Applicant had remained in occupation of the land for over two decades, placed tenants on it, and continued to derive rental income despite the judgment against him.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has satisfied the legal requirements for grant of a stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application to be borne by the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Five Essential Requirements
For a stay of execution pending appeal to be granted, an applicant must satisfy five cumulative conditions: (1) that a notice of appeal has been filed and steps taken to prosecute the appeal; (2) that the intended appeal raises triable issues with a strong likelihood of success; (3) that the applicant will suffer irreparable damage if the stay is not granted; (4) that the balance of convenience favours the grant of the stay; and (5) that the application was made without unreasonable delay.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Requirement of Proof by Evidence
Substantial loss, which is the cornerstone of an application for stay of execution, refers to real loss of value that cannot be undone once inflicted and cannot be adequately compensated by damages. Such loss must be proved by evidence and not by mere statements. Eviction, if ultimately found wrongful on appeal, is generally a reversible act or one capable of being adequately compensated by damages, unless exceptional or irreversible circumstances are demonstrated.
Stay of Execution — Delay — Calculation from Date of Judgment
An applicant for stay of execution cannot wait until execution becomes imminent before seeking a stay. Such conduct is reactive, dilatory, and indicates lack of diligence. Where an application for stay is filed approximately one year and ten months after judgment and only after a consequential eviction order has been granted, with no satisfactory explanation offered for the delay, the application is filed with unreasonable delay.
Stay of Execution — Balance of Convenience — Preservation of Status Quo
The power to grant a stay of execution is discretionary and must be exercised equitably with a view to temporarily preserving the status quo. As a general rule, a stay will only be justified where the applicant demonstrates that, once the decretal property is disposed of, there is no likelihood of recovering it should the appeal succeed. Where a respondent holds a valid judgment declaring him the lawful owner of land and the applicant has remained in occupation for over two decades deriving income therefrom, granting a stay would not preserve the status quo but would perpetuate defiance of court orders and unjustly deny the respondent the fruits of his judgment.
Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance of Decree — Mandatory Requirement
Security for the due performance of a decree is a mandatory requirement under Order 43 rule 4(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is intended to protect the respondent from the risk that the applicant may not be able to satisfy the decree. Where an applicant does not offer or propose any form of security, this omission is not cured by counsel's submission that the matter is for court to determine and that the client has no objection to it.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (17)

  • Hon. Ssekikubo & 3 Ors v Attorney General & 4 Ors (Constitutional Application No. 06 of 2013)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businge (SCCA No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Ndiege (C.A. Misc. Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • GAPCO Uganda Ltd v Kaweesa & Another (Misc. Application No. 259 of 2013)
  • Aids Health Foundation v Dr. Stephen Mirembe Kizito (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 146 of 2014)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd & 2 Ors v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (Misc. Application No. 379 of 2003)
  • Mabu Commodities Ltd v Sophie Nakitende (Misc. Application No. 530 of 2020)
  • P.K. Ssengendo v Busulwa Lawrence & Anor (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 207 of 2014)
  • Ssewankambo Dickson v Ziwa Abby (MCMA No. 178 of 2005)
  • Ujagar Singh v Runda Coffee Estates Ltd [1966] EA 263
  • Khaki & 28 others v Juma & 5 others [2025] KEELC 333
  • National Enterprise Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Misc. Application No. 7 of 1998)
  • Formular Feeds Limited v KCB Bank Ltd (HCMS No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Moses Kasule & Anor v Pelucy Ntambirweki (Misc. Application No. 1743 of 2025)
  • Walusimbi Mustafa v Musenze Lukia (Misc. Application No. 232 of 2018)
  • Rosemary Binwomukama & Another v Uganda Wildlife Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 13 of 2019)
  • Micro Finance Support Centre Ltd v William Agoo Ekallo (Misc. Application No. 639 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Abdu_Salam_Lubowa_v_Musa_Lubega_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._2481_of_2025)_[2025]_UGHCLD_418_(17_December_2025)
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.