Wakilii

Akena and Another v Odong (Miscellaneous Application 52 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 47 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of High Court decree pending determination of appeal to the Court of Appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed; applicants remain subject to execution of decree

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 the application for stay of execution pending appeal. The applicants failed to establish that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if execution proceeded, and failed to prove substantial loss beyond ordinary loss suffered by every judgment debtor. Although the appeal raised arguable grounds and was filed without unreasonable delay, these factors alone were insufficient to warrant stay of execution.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed; applicants remain subject to execution of decree

Facts

The respondent obtained judgment in the Chief Magistrates Court declaring him lawful owner of approximately 700 acres at Latinyer Village. The judgment awarded general damages of UGX 10,000,000 and issued a permanent injunction against the applicants. The applicants' appeal to the High Court was dismissed in 2019. They filed a further appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 311 of 2019) which remained pending. Meanwhile, the respondent applied to the Chief Magistrates Court for execution by arrest, attachment and eviction. A notice to show cause was issued on 18 October 2024. The applicants then applied to the High Court for stay of execution pending determination of their Court of Appeal appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules for stay of execution pending appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Order 43 rule 4(3) CPR
For a stay of execution pending appeal to the Court of Appeal, an applicant must satisfy the conditions under Order 43 rule 4(3) CPR: that substantial loss may result unless the order is granted; that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and that security has been given for due performance of the decree.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Inherent Jurisdiction of High Court
The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to stay execution of its own orders pending appeal to the Court of Appeal, notwithstanding the absence of specific legislation providing for such jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance
Where an applicant has not furnished security for costs or made an undertaking to do so at the time of filing, but other conditions for stay have been met, the court may grant a stay of execution conditional upon furnishing security for due performance of the decree.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Rendering Appeal Nugatory
To satisfy the condition that an appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted, an applicant must prove that what is sought to be stayed, if allowed to happen, will be irreversible, or if not irreversible, that damages will not reasonably compensate the aggrieved party.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
Substantial loss under Order 43 rule 4(3) CPR refers to any loss of real worth or value, not merely nominal loss. It must be something in addition to and different from the ordinary loss to which every judgment debtor is necessarily subjected when deprived of property in consequence of losing a case. The applicant must specify the kind of loss with details sufficient to satisfy the court's conscience that such loss will really ensue.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (22)

  • Osman Kassim Ramathan v Centenary Bottling Company Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2019)
  • UTODA v Uganda Revenue Authority (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2018)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businghye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Mugenyi & Co. Advocates v National Insurance Corporation (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1984)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Jomo Kinyatta University of Agriculture & Technology versus Martin Higiro Court of Appeal of Kenya Civil Appeal (Application) No. E268 OF 2024
  • Yellow Horse Inns Ltd vs. A. A Kawir Transporters & 4 others [2014] eKLR
  • Kenya Commercial Bank Limited vs. Nicholas Ombija [2009] eKLR
  • Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui versu Tonny Ketter and 5 Ors (2013) e KlR
  • Beeline Travel Care (U) Ltd & Another v Finance Trust Bank (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2023)
  • Albert George Gitta and 2 Others v Lilian Nangoma (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 693 of 2022)
  • Krone Uganda Limited v Kerilee Investment Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 63 of 2020)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and others v. International Credit Bank Ltd (in liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Dr. Ann Persis Nakate Lussejere (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2003)
  • Christine Aziku and 9 Others v Rokani Andrew (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2021)
  • Walusimbi Mustafa v Musenze (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 232 of 2018)
  • Formula Feeds Limited and 3 Others v KCB Bank Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Lubega Moses v Nasimbwa Sylvia (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 122 of 2024)
  • Twongyeirwe Peter v Muhumuza Peter (Miscellaneous Application No. 681 of 2021)
  • James Wangalwa 7Another versus Agnes Naliaka Cheseto [2012] eKLR
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board versus Coqecot Cotton Co. SA (1995-1998) 1 E.A 312
  • Bansidhav Vs Pribku Dayal AIR 41 1954

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Akena and Another v Odong (Miscellaneous Application 52 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 47 (23 January 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.