Wakilii

Alex Kanyonyi Kaaya and Another v Uganda Development Bank and Others (Miscellaneous Application 156 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 212 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of orders in Miscellaneous Application No. 1650 of 2025 pending appeal to the Court of Appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed; applicants' Notice of Appeal found incompetent for lack of leave to 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

The High Court dismissed the application for stay of execution. The court held that the applicants had no automatic right of appeal from the dismissal of a contempt application and were required to obtain leave to appeal, which they failed to do. Consequently, the Notice of Appeal was incompetent and could not sustain an application for stay. Additionally, the court found that the order of dismissal was a negative order incapable of execution, and the applicants failed to demonstrate that taxation or execution for costs would occasion substantial loss.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed; applicants' Notice of Appeal found incompetent for lack of leave to appeal

Facts

The applicants filed Miscellaneous Application No. 1650 of 2025 seeking contempt orders against the respondents for alleged disobedience of court orders in Civil Suit No. 996 of 2019, claiming that land was transferred to the 2nd respondent instead of the 5th respondent. On 19 December 2025, the court dismissed the contempt application with costs, finding no credible evidence of wilful disobedience and holding that the allegations concerned land registration irregularities properly addressed through substantive land proceedings. The applicants filed a Notice of Appeal and then brought this application for stay of execution, citing an imminent threat of execution through taxation of costs. Several respondents filed bills of costs and succeeded in taxation proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution pending appeal should be allowed.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Appealability of Contempt Orders — Requirement for Leave to Appeal
An order granting or dismissing a contempt application is not appealable as of right under Section 76 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and requires leave of court before an appeal can be lodged.
Stay of Execution — Competence of Application — Requirement of Valid Appeal
An application for stay of execution pending appeal can only be sustained where a valid Notice of Appeal has been duly filed in accordance with the law; where the Notice of Appeal is incompetent for failure to obtain required leave, there is no subsisting appeal to which the application for stay can attach.
Stay of Execution — Negative Orders — Orders Incapable of Execution
An order dismissing an application is a negative order which is incapable of execution and therefore not amenable to an order of stay of execution, as it requires no enforcement machinery to take effect.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Taxation of Costs
Apprehension of financial inconvenience from taxation or execution for costs, without more, does not meet the evidential threshold for demonstrating substantial loss in applications for stay of execution, particularly where any amounts due can be quantified and recovered in the ordinary course of execution should the appeal succeed.
Contempt of Court — Distinction Between Contemnors and Other Parties
The principle that a contemnor cannot be heard in a different but related cause or motion unless they have purged themselves of contempt does not apply to parties who were never adjudged in contempt; such parties are not precluded from seeking stay of execution of an order dismissing a contempt application brought by them.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (9)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Alex Kanyonyi Kaaya and Another v Uganda Development Bank and Others (Miscellaneous Application 156 of 2026) [2026] UGCommC 212 (12 April 2026)
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.