Alai-Dada v Hoima Catholic Diocese (Miscellaneous Application No. 47 of 2019)
Observed later treatment
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 granted stay of execution of a decree dismissing the applicant's land suit pending appeal to the Court of Appeal. The court found the applicant would suffer substantial loss beyond ordinary judgment debtor loss, having occupied the land for over forty years with permanent structures and livelihood thereon. The application was brought promptly. The court ordered the applicant to deposit fifteen million shillings as security for due performance of the decree by 31 August 2020, failing which the respondent would be at liberty to execute.
Outcome
Stay of execution granted conditionally on deposit of security
Facts
The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 513 of 2001 against the respondent claiming ownership of land and seeking cancellation of the respondent's title on grounds of fraud. The High Court dismissed the applicant's case with costs on 11 April 2019. The applicant immediately filed a notice of appeal on 16 April 2019 in the High Court and on 18 April 2019 in the Court of Appeal. The respondent then filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 10 of 2019 seeking consequential orders and filed a bill of costs for taxation. The applicant had occupied the suit land for over forty years, erected permanent structures thereon, and derived his livelihood from the land. The applicant filed this application for stay of execution on 14 May 2019 to prevent eviction and execution pending the appeal.
Issues
- Whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss if stay of execution is not granted.
- Whether the application for stay of execution was made without unreasonable delay.
- Whether the applicant has furnished or should furnish security for due performance of the decree.
Orders
- Application for stay of execution granted with conditions.
- Applicant to deposit fifteen million shillings as security for due performance of decree in the High Court by 31 August 2020.
- Upon failure to deposit the security, respondent at liberty to execute the decree.
- Costs of the application to abide outcome of the appeal in the Court of Appeal.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (8)
- Civil Procedure Act s.6
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Judicature Act s.33
- Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.4(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.4(3)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.4(5)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.2
Cases cited (6)
- Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
- Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
- Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
- [2014] UGCommC 12
- Steel Rolling Mills Limited and Another vs. Gestation Economigue Des Mission Catholic and Another
- Pan African Insurance Company (U) Limited v International Air Transport Association (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2006)
Cases citing this judgment (1)
How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.