Wakilii

Amina Rose Nakaye v Hajji Juma Achikule (Civil Suit No. 29 of 1993)

High Court · [1994] UGHC 172 · 1994 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of decree pending appeal to Supreme Court
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs; decree remains executable

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. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate good cause or special circumstances justifying a stay. The applicant, who resided in Arua and was not a dependant on the deceased's estate, would not suffer irreparable injury if execution proceeded. The respondent widow, entitled to her husband's estate under the Succession Amendment Decree and proper person to administer it, would suffer irreparable harm if deprived of support. The applicant failed to provide security as required under Order 35 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs; decree remains executable

Facts

The respondent/plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 29 of 1993 against the applicant/defendant under section 265 of the Succession Act following lodging of a caveat against grant of letters of administration. The respondent was widow of the late Juma Yuma of Kawempe who died in November 1992. After his death, the applicant/defendant, who ordinarily resided in Arua and was father of the deceased, came to the matrimonial home and forced the widow to leave. The court found in favour of the plaintiff, the caveat was removed, and letters of administration were granted to her on 26 May 1994. A decree was issued on 8 June 1994. The defendant lodged notice of appeal and applied for stay of execution, claiming irreparable damage if execution proceeded. The respondent opposed, stating she had been living with her mother and daughter, fully dependant on relatives for support, while the applicant had been in control of the estate and had rented out the matrimonial home.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant/defendant should be granted a stay of execution of the decree pending determination of the appeal before the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether the applicant demonstrated good cause and special circumstances justifying a stay of execution.
  3. Whether irreparable damage would be caused to the applicant if execution is not stayed.
  4. Whether the conditions under Order 35 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules were satisfied.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent/plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Requirements for Grant — Good Cause and Special Circumstances
A court can only grant a stay of execution if satisfied that there is good cause to do so and that there are special circumstances to justify such course.
Stay of Execution Pending Appeal — Duty to Prevent Appeal Being Rendered Nugatory
Where an unsuccessful party exercises an unrestricted right of appeal, it is the duty of the court in ordinary cases to make such order for staying proceedings as will prevent the appeal, if successful, from being nugatory, but the court will not interfere if the appeal appears not to be bonafide or there are other sufficient exceptional circumstances.
Stay of Execution — Right of Successful Party to Execute Decree
A successful party in the High Court is entitled to enforce the decree obtained even by execution if necessary, and pendency of an appeal is no bar to doing so. Stay is not automatic by virtue only that an appeal has been filed; the losing party must apply for stay and satisfy the prescribed conditions.
Stay of Execution — Compliance with Order 35 Rule 4(3) — Security Requirement
An applicant for stay of execution must comply with the conditions in Order 35 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, including demonstrating that substantial loss might result unless the order for stay is made and giving security for due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him. Non-compliance is fatal to the application.
Letters of Administration — Widow as Proper Person to Administer Estate
A widow is the proper person to be granted letters of administration to the estate of her deceased husband because she would administer the estate well in the interest of her children the beneficiaries, and is entitled to a share of her husband's estate under section 28 of the Succession Amendment Decree 22 of 1972.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (6)

  • Kampala City Council v National Pharmacy Ltd (Civil Application No. 13 of 1979)
  • Somali Democratic Republic v Ancop & Sundralingam (Civil Application No. 11 of 1988)
  • Wilson v Church (No. 2) (1879) 12 Ch D 454
  • Lawrence Musitwa Kyazze Vs. Eunice Businge civil appeal (unreported)
  • Baguna Vs. Matende HOPS N.MPP 12/1985
  • Bitorida Nandaula v Uganda Bank Ltd [1992] 1 KAD 77

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Amina Rose Nakaye v Hajji Juma Achikule (Civil Suit No. 29 of 1993) [1994] UGHC 172 (25 August 1994)
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.