Abule v Rtd Col. Omaria (Civil Revision 2 of 2023)
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
Held that the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act is strictly limited to questions of exercise of jurisdiction. A trial magistrate ordering security for due performance as a condition for stay of execution acts within vested jurisdiction. Security for due performance of a decree is distinct from security for costs on appeal and governed by different rules. An applicant's inability to pay the security amount is not a ground for revision but should be addressed to the trial court for reconsideration through the proper application. Application dismissed.
Outcome
Application for revision dismissed with costs to the applicant
Facts
The applicant sought revision of a Chief Magistrate's Court order in Miscellaneous Application No. 55 of 2022, which granted a stay of execution in Civil Suit No. 07 of 2014 on condition that the applicant deposit UGX 18,000,000 as security for due performance within 14 days. The applicant argued he could not afford the sum, had already paid security for costs of UGX 200,000 in the Court of Appeal where his appeal was pending, and that the order was irregular and unjust. The respondent opposed, arguing the trial magistrate acted within jurisdiction, the application abused court process to delay execution, and security for due performance differs from security for costs. The applicant claimed to be a subsistence farmer unable to pay the ordered amount.
Issues
- Whether this is a proper case for revision of the orders of the trial magistrate in Miscellaneous Application No. 55 of 2022.
- Whether the trial magistrate exercised jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity in ordering the applicant to deposit UGX 18,000,000 as security for due performance.
- Whether security for costs deposited in the Court of Appeal exempts an applicant from furnishing security for due performance of a decree in a lower court.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs of the application to be paid by the applicant to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
Cases cited (4)
- Eliazali Bameka v Dodovico Nviiri [1973] 1 ULR 134
- Mabalaganya v Sanga [2005] EA 152
- Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
- Kyambogo University v Prof Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.