Wakilii

Abdul Latif Kamulegeya v Blaize Twagirayesu (Miscellaneous Application No. 779 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 269 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of orders in Miscellaneous Application No. 1349 of 2024 and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 0318 of 2024, pending determination of Miscellaneous Application No. 739 of 2025 seeking to set aside consent judgments
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 court dismissed the application for stay of execution. The applicant failed to satisfy the tripartite test for stay: the main application for review lacked merit on its face, the applicant failed to prove irreparable harm where the property was voluntarily offered as security for his release from prison, and the balance of convenience favoured enforcement of a long-outstanding judgment debt from 2018. Costs awarded to the respondent.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

In March 2017, a vendor agreed to sell land to the respondent for US$230,000, with the applicant as witness. The respondent paid US$38,000 before the contract was rescinded. The applicant undertook to refund this sum but failed. The respondent sued in Civil Suit No. 1023 of 2017. On 15 February 2018, the parties entered a consent judgment requiring the applicant to pay US$38,000 in instalments by 15 May 2018, with 6% monthly interest on default. The applicant defaulted. On 13 July 2018, a second consent order was executed before the Deputy Registrar, establishing the outstanding sum as US$36,580 and UGX 1,000,000, with the applicant depositing two land titles as security. The applicant made payments totalling US$28,000, leaving US$8,580 plus UGX 1,000,000 outstanding. The applicant claimed to have paid UGX 11,000,000 to the respondent's lawyer, but the respondent denied receiving it. Execution proceedings were revived. The applicant was arrested and imprisoned on 14 February 2024. To secure release, he deposited a certificate of title for land at Nalumunye on 1 March 2024. His appeal against the registrar's execution orders was dismissed on 4 April 2024. The court granted vacant possession of the Nalumunye property on 7 January 2025. The applicant then filed an application to set aside the original consent judgments and sought a stay of the vacant possession order pending that review.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent's affidavit in reply is argumentative and should be disregarded.
  2. Whether the application is barred by the doctrine of lis pendens.
  3. Whether the main application for review is barred by res judicata.
  4. Whether the orders sought to be stayed are positive orders capable of being stayed.
  5. Whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of a stay of execution, namely: (a) pendency of a suit; (b) threat of execution; (c) sufficient ground including likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of convenience, and absence of unreasonable delay.

Orders

  • The Applicant's application is dismissed.
  • The Applicant shall bear the Respondent's costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Argumentative and Prolix Affidavits — Test for Rejection
An affidavit in reply will not be rejected as argumentative or prolix merely because it is lengthy or conveys the deponent's frustration, provided its core substance is fundamentally factual and presents a chronological account of relevant events, conduct of parties, and judicial findings within the deponent's knowledge.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Preliminary Objections — Lis Pendens and Res Judicata — Premature Determination
In an application for stay of execution, a determination of whether the main application is barred by lis pendens or res judicata is premature, as it would constitute descending into the merits of the main application, whereas the purpose of a stay application is to determine whether the interests of justice favour preserving the status quo pending determination of the related suit.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Positive and Negative Orders — Orders Capable of Being Stayed
A stay of execution may only be granted in respect of positive orders that require parties to do something and are capable of execution. Negative orders, such as orders dismissing an application, are not capable of being stayed, save for any costs component which constitutes a positive order.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Tripartite Test — Pendency of Suit, Threat of Execution, Sufficient Ground
Under Order 22 Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a stay of execution will be granted where: (a) there is pendency of a suit by a judgment creditor or losing party against a holder of a decree; (b) there exists a threat of execution; and (c) there is sufficient ground for grant of the relief, including likelihood of success of the main suit, irreparable harm or rendering the appeal nugatory, balance of convenience, and absence of unreasonable delay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success — Test for Triable Issue
In assessing likelihood of success for purposes of a stay application, the court does not determine the merits of the main suit but merely examines whether the pleadings, assumed to be true, reveal on their face at least one material proposition of law or fact warranting adjudication. A stay will not be granted to preserve a right to argue a case that is patently frivolous or an abuse of process.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Irreparable Harm — Voluntary Offer of Security — Approbate and Reprobate
Where an applicant voluntarily offered property as security to secure release from civil prison and the appeal for which the security was given subsequently failed, the applicant cannot claim irreparable harm from execution against that property. To do so would be to approbate and reprobate — benefiting from the undertaking while resiling from the corresponding obligation.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Balance of Convenience — Long-Outstanding Judgment Debt
The balance of convenience in a stay application favours enforcement where the judgment debt has been outstanding since 2018, the applicant has engaged in obstructionist behaviour and delaying tactics, and the loss the applicant faces is not an arbitrary deprivation but the lawful settlement of a judgment debt.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (32)

  • Wilson v Church (1879) 12 Ch D 454
  • Makerere University Business School and Prof Wasswa Balunywa v Dr. Isaac Wanzige Magoola (HCMA No. 295 of 2020)
  • Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (SCCA No. 7 of 2018)
  • Springs International Hotel Ltd v Hotel Diplomate Ltd and Another (HCCS No. 227 of 2011)
  • Nakasero Market Sitting Vendors & Traders Ltd v Kampala Capital City Authority and Another (HCMC No. 348 of 2020)
  • Jadva Karsan v Harnam Singh Bhogal [1953] 20 EACA 74
  • Karia and Another v Attorney General and Others [2005] 1 EA 83
  • Boutique Shazim Limited v Norattam Bhatia and Another (CACA No. 36 of 2007)
  • Onzia Elizabeth v Shaban Fadul and Another (HCCA No. 19 of 2013)
  • Cwezi Properties v UDB (HCMA No. 1315 of 2022)
  • Kalanzi Lucy v ABSA Bank (HCMA No. 1715 of 2024)
  • Kare Distributors Ltd and Another v NCBA Bank Uganda Limited (CACA No. 100 of 2023)
  • Charles Ssemwanga v Nazziwa Aisha and Others (CACA No. 20 of 2022)
  • Exclusive Estate Limited v Kenya Posts and Telecommunications Corporation and Another [2005] 1 EA 53
  • Parliamentary Commission v Francis Byamugisha and Another (HCMA No. 219 of 2016)
  • Raymond M. Omboga v Austine Pyan Maranga Kisii (HCCA No. 15 of 2010)
  • Jennifer Akinyi Osodo v Boniface Okumu Osodo and 3 Others [2021] eKLR
  • Aya Investments Limited v International Development Corporation Of South Africa (HCMA No. 3063 of 2023)
  • Nelson Lukozi v Meera Investments Limited and Others (HCMA No. 1970 of 2023)
  • Beeline Travel Care Limited and Another v Finance Trust Bank (HCMA No. 296 of 2023)
  • Donati Kananura v Tribet Rujugiro (HCMA No. 1782 of 2022)
  • Uganda Debt Network v Edward Ronald Sekyewa (HCMA No. 1657 of 2023)
  • Formula Feeds Limited and Others v KCB Bank (HCMA No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Hon. Hajji Mohammed Kato v Justus Kyabahwa (HCMA No. 875 of 2023)
  • Maria Odido v Barclays Bank (HCMA No. 645 of 2008)
  • Children of Africa v Sarick Construction Limited (HCMA No. 134 of 2016)
  • Proline Soccer Academy v Commissioner Land Registration (HCMA No. 494 of 2018)
  • Moses Kasozi v Muhammad Batte and Others (HCCA No. 24 of 2020)
  • GAPCO Uganda Ltd v Kaweesa and Another (HCMA No. 259 of 2013)
  • Vision Empire Ltd v Uganda Communications Commission (HCMA No. 1141 of 2020)
  • Stanbic Bank Limited v Kesacon Services Limited (HCMA No. 724 of 2023)
  • Luwa Luwa Investments v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCMA No. 1336 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Abdul Latif Kamulegeya v Blaize Twagirayesu (Miscellaneous Application No. 779 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 269 (15 August 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.