Amon Sendagala v Sarah Namugwanya [2026] UGHCLD 204
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 applicant sought a stay of execution of the decree in Civil Suit No. 0694 of 2018 pending appeal. On the appointed hearing date, of which the parties had been notified by a hearing notice uploaded on ECCMIS, neither the applicant nor his advocate appeared or explained the absence, while the respondent appeared through counsel having filed an affidavit in reply. The court applied Order 9 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires dismissal where the defending party appears and the party prosecuting the matter does not, and dismissed the application for non-appearance. Costs were awarded to the respondent, who had incurred expense in filing an affidavit in reply and attending court.
Outcome
Application for stay of execution dismissed for non-appearance; costs to the respondent
Facts
The applicant filed a notice of motion on 21 October 2025 through ECCMIS seeking to stay execution of the decree or orders arising from the judgment against him in Civil Suit No. 0694 of 2018, pending appeal. The application also arose in connection with EMA No. 0176 of 2025. The respondent filed an affidavit in reply on 22 May 2026. A hearing notice informing the parties that the application would be heard on 2 June 2026 at 8:00am was uploaded on ECCMIS on 20 May 2026. When the matter was called on that date, neither the applicant nor his advocate attended, and no reason for the absence was communicated to the court. The respondent attended in person and was represented by counsel, who applied for dismissal of the application under Order 9 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Issues
- Whether the application for stay of execution should be dismissed under Order 9 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules where the applicant and his counsel failed to appear at the hearing without explanation.
Orders
- The Application is dismissed under Order 9, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 for non-appearance of the Applicant to prosecute the Application.
- Costs are awarded to the Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.