Wakilii

Acham v Okumu (Miscellaneous Application No. 166 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 245 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of High Court judgment pending appeal to Court of Appeal
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent; respondent restrained from disposing of suit land pending appeal.

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

Application for stay of execution dismissed. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss, as the suit land was an empty plot and the order to remove makeshift structures would not cause loss. The applicant failed to show special circumstances justifying non-payment of monetary awards and did not pledge security for performance of the decree. However, the respondent was restrained from selling, alienating, or disposing of the suit land pending appeal.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent; respondent restrained from disposing of suit land pending appeal.

Facts

The applicant, Ms. Acham, was the unsuccessful party in High Court Civil Appeal No. 0003 of 2019, which arose from Civil Suit No. 155 of 2010 in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Entebbe. In the appeal judgment delivered on 30 September 2021, the High Court set aside the lower court's judgment and declared Mr. Okori the lawful owner of land comprised in LRV 4239 Folio 1, Plot 36 Mirza Road, Entebbe. Ms. Acham was declared a trespasser with no interest in the land. The court ordered her immediate eviction and removal of a store/makeshift structure and iron sheet garage from the empty plot, issued a permanent injunction restraining her from interfering with Mr. Okori's possession, and awarded him UGX 20,000,000 in general damages for trespass plus costs. On 11 February 2022, costs were taxed at UGX 9,162,000. Ms. Acham filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2022) and sought a stay of execution pending that appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the order sought for stay of execution should be granted.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution dismissed.
  • Pending disposal of the appeal in the Court of Appeal, the respondent is restrained from selling, alienating, wasting, or disposing of the suit land in any way.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Jurisdiction and Applicable Law — Appeals from High Court to Court of Appeal
An application for stay of execution of a High Court judgment pending appeal to the Court of Appeal is not made under Order 43 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which governs appeals to the High Court, not from it. The jurisdiction of the High Court to stay its orders stems from section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, which preserves the inherent power of the court.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Purpose and Principles
The purpose of issuing an order of stay of execution is to preserve the status quo until the disposal of an appeal and to ensure that the appeal, if successful, is not rendered nugatory.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements for Grant
When considering an application for stay of execution, the applicant must satisfy the court that: (i) the applicant has lodged an appeal; (ii) substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is granted; (iii) the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (iv) security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him or her.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Assessment of Likelihood of Success on Appeal
A trial judge should not assess the likelihood of success of an appeal when determining an application for stay of execution, as this is a factor that should not be allowed to interfere with the judge's decision on whether or not to grant a stay of execution, and such assessment is the preserve of the appellate court.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Burden of Proof
An applicant for stay of execution must demonstrate to the court that substantial loss will result if the order is not granted. Unsupported averments without corroborating evidence carry no evidential value and will be rejected.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Payment of Judgment Debt — Special Circumstances
Payment of a judgment debt by a judgment debtor does not cause injustice where there are no special circumstances to justify the grant of a stay of execution. An applicant must demonstrate special circumstances justifying non-payment of monetary awards.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (5)

  • Mugenyi and Co. Advocates v National Insurance Corporation (Court of Appeal No. 14 of 1984)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Dr. Ann Persis Nakate Lussejjere (Court of Appeal Application No. 29 of 2003)
  • Kampala City Council v National Pharmacy Ltd [1979] HCB 215

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Acham_v_Okumu_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._166_of_2022)_[2022]_UGHCLD_245_(11_April_2022)
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.