Wakilii

Akugizibwe Isaiah v Mugisa Robert (Miscellaneous Application 111 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 111 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending determination of application for leave to appeal out of time
Decision
Stay of execution granted conditionally pending determination of application for leave to appeal out of time

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 execution should be stayed pending determination of the application for leave to appeal out of time. The applicant satisfied the requirements under Order 43 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules: substantial loss would result from committal to civil prison, imminent threat of execution existed, application was made without unreasonable delay, and security for due performance was ordered. Stay granted on condition of depositing security of UGX 8,500,000 within two months.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted conditionally pending determination of application for leave to appeal out of time

Facts

Judgment in Kyenjojo Civil Suit No. 028 of 2022 was delivered on 25 August 2023 against the applicant in his absence. The applicant, a court bailiff who had executed a lawful court process, was unaware of the judgment delivery date because the Chief Registrar had directed that all matters be adjourned. After securing a copy of the judgment, the applicant's current lawyer filed Miscellaneous Application No. 098 of 2023 for leave to appeal out of time. Before that application could be heard, the respondent commenced execution proceedings by serving a notice to show cause on 20 November 2023, requiring the applicant to appear on 1 December 2023 to show cause why he should not be arrested and committed to civil prison to recover UGX 17,040,000. The applicant then filed this application on 13 December 2023 seeking a stay of execution. The respondent was served but did not respond, and the court heard the application exparte.

Issues

  1. Whether execution of the orders in Kyenjojo Civil Suit No. 028 of 2022 should be stayed pending the outcome of Miscellaneous Application No. 098 of 2023 for leave to appeal out of time.

Orders

  • Stay of execution of the decrees and orders in Kyenjojo Civil Suit No. 028 of 2022 pending determination of Miscellaneous Application No. 098 of 2023 or the appeal if leave is granted.
  • Stay granted on condition that the applicant deposits UGX 8,500,000 as security for due performance of the decree within two months from the date of the ruling.
  • If applicant fails to deposit security within two months, execution shall issue against him.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal in the Court of Appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements under Order 43 Rule 4
An application for stay of execution under Order 43 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires the applicant to satisfy three conditions: that substantial loss may result unless the order is made, 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 — Meaning of Substantial Loss
Substantial loss for purposes of stay of execution need not be determined by a mathematical formula and includes any loss or substantial inconvenience that a party may be subjected to, representing actual loss whether great or small, as opposed to nominal damages.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Imminent Threat of Execution
In addition to the statutory requirements, an applicant for stay of execution must prove that there is a serious and imminent threat of execution of the decree or order, and that refusal to grant the stay would inflict greater hardship than it would avoid.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance
Security for due performance of the decree can be secured by provision of security for costs rather than the entire decretal sum. Courts have been reluctant to order security for the entire decretal amount as this practice is likely to stifle appeals. The requirement should not be used as punishment or as a mechanism to frustrate the appeal by ordering security which the applicant may not be able to pay.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (9)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof Isiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd & 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (Miscellaneous Application No. 379 of 2003)
  • Shem Mpanga Mukasa & Another v Kizza Clessy Barya (Miscellaneous Application No. 479 of 2021)
  • Kisaalu Joseph & 10 Others v Nakintu May & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 105 of 2020)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd & 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)
  • Amon Bazira v Maurice Pater Kagimu (Land Division Miscellaneous Application No. 1138 of 2016)
  • The New Vision Publishing Corporation & 2 Others v Peter Kaggwa (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 127 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Akugizibwe Isaiah v Mugisa Robert (Miscellaneous Application 111 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 111 (27 March 2024)
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.