Wakilii

Ainomugisha v Nkabahita (Miscellaneous Application 555 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 77 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of High Court decree pending appeal
Decision
Stay of execution granted pending appeal despite applicant's failure to satisfy the usual requirements

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 on the merits but granted on discretionary grounds. The court found that the applicant failed to establish substantial loss, failed to demonstrate likelihood of success on appeal, and failed to provide security for costs. However, the court exercised its discretion to grant the stay because a notice of appeal had been filed without unreasonable delay and the matter concerned land.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted pending appeal despite applicant's failure to satisfy the usual requirements

Facts

The applicant was the defendant in HCT-05-CV-CS-0051-2015. Judgment was delivered against her on 19 October 2023 and a decree was extracted the same day. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 26 October 2023. On 9 November 2023, execution against the applicant was attempted. The applicant applied for stay of execution on 21 November 2023, approximately one month after judgment. The applicant did not provide evidence of substantial loss, did not file a memorandum of appeal to demonstrate likelihood of success, and did not pay security for costs. The respondent opposed the application, contending that the applicant had not been diligent in prosecuting the appeal and had not complied with requirements for security.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has adduced sufficient reasons to justify the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution granted in the exercise of the court's discretion.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Test for Grant — Four Requirements
For a stay of execution pending appeal to be granted, the applicant must satisfy four requirements: (a) substantial loss may result unless the order is made; (b) the application has been made without unreasonable delay; (c) the appeal has a likelihood of success; and (d) security has been given for due performance of the decree. If these criteria are not established, the court must consider where the balance of convenience lies.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Definition and Proof Required
Substantial loss refers to any loss, great or small, that is of real worth or value as distinguished from loss without value or that which is merely nominal. An applicant must adduce evidence to substantiate that they will suffer substantial and irreparable loss if execution is carried out before the appeal is heard and determined. Mere critique of the execution process without evidence of loss is insufficient.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success — Memorandum of Appeal Required
To satisfy the requirement of likelihood of success on appeal, an applicant must show that there is a serious question to be tried by the appellate court. This determination can only be made by perusing the memorandum of appeal or draft thereof. The court hearing the stay application is not required to examine the merits as it would be sitting as an appellate court in its own decision.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Costs — Discretionary Power
The power to order security for costs is discretionary and must be used sparingly. The purpose of security for costs is to protect the defendant and prevent frivolous litigation. However, courts must ensure that parties with just claims are not prevented from accessing justice. An applicant seeking stay of execution should be prepared to satisfy the court that security has been given for due performance of the decree.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Discretion to Grant Despite Non-Satisfaction of Requirements
A court may exercise its discretion to grant a stay of execution even where the applicant has not satisfied all the usual requirements, particularly where a notice of appeal has been filed without unreasonable delay and the matter concerns land.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (15)

  • Livingstone Nsumba Membe v Fibiano Mayoga [2009] 1 HCB 82
  • Francis M. Micah v Nuwa Walakira (1992-93) HCB 88
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd and Ors v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (2004) 2 EA 331
  • Kaggwa v Kawalya-Kaggwa (Administration Cause No. 21 of 1972)
  • Kyazze v Busingye [1990] LLR 190 (SCU)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v The Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 06 of 2013)
  • Gashumba v Nkudiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015) [2015] UGSC 7
  • Dr. Anmed Mohhamad Kisule v Greenland Bank (In Liquidation) (SCCA No. 7 of 2010)
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Lusejjere (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 29 of 2003)
  • Wilson v Church [1879] 12 Ch D 454
  • Haruna Sentongo v I & M Bank Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 113 of 2023)
  • UCB v Multi Constructors Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1994)
  • Paul Nyamarere and 3 Ors v Dison Okumu and 6 Ors (SC Civil Application No. 35 of 2020)
  • Kiiza v Emojong [2024] UGCA 220
  • Lawrence Musitwa Kyazze (supra)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ainomugisha v Nkabahita (Miscellaneous Application 555 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 77 (27 February 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.