Wakilii

Annet Tumwebaze Mugasha v Tumuhairwe Moses and Another (Miscellaneous Application 6271 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCFD 60 · 2026 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of taxation proceedings pending appeal to the Court of Appeal
Decision
Stay of execution granted conditionally pending appeal; stay to lapse automatically if security not provided within 21 days

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 granted a conditional stay of execution of taxation proceedings pending appeal. The court held that while the applicant satisfied the threshold requirements for a stay, the significant delay in filing and prosecuting the application, combined with partial satisfaction of the likelihood of success condition, warranted stringent conditions including deposit of 50% of the taxed costs as security within 21 days.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted conditionally pending appeal; stay to lapse automatically if security not provided within 21 days

Facts

The Applicant, as administrator of the estate of the late Frank Mugasha Muhumuza, was defendant in Civil Suit No. 102 of 2020, a succession dispute. Judgment was delivered on 14 April 2025 in favour of the Respondents, who are biological children of the deceased. The Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal on 28 April 2025 and subsequently a Memorandum of Appeal giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 006 of 2026. The Respondents filed a Bill of Costs in Taxation Application No. 0032 of 2025 claiming UGX 75,570,000 and extracted a Taxation Hearing Notice. The Applicant filed the present application for stay of execution on 14 September 2025, some five months after judgment. The Respondents opposed the application, alleging contempt of court orders, failure to file accounts as ordered, and that the appeal was invalid. The Applicant responded that she had complied with court orders and that the appeal was validly lodged.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of an order for stay of execution of the proceedings in Taxation Application No. 0032 of 2025 pending the determination of Civil Appeal No. 006 of 2026 before the Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No. 6271 of 2025 is allowed on conditions.
  • The proceedings in Taxation Application No. 0032 of 2025 are stayed pending the determination of Civil Appeal No. 006 of 2026 before the Court of Appeal, or until further orders of this Court.
  • The Applicant shall, within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this ruling, deposit 50% of the amount set out in the Bill of Costs vide Taxation Application No. 0032 of 2025, or lodge a bank guarantee from a recognised commercial bank in Uganda for an equivalent sum as security for due performance.
  • Failure to comply with the security condition within the prescribed period shall cause the stay granted to lapse automatically without further order of this Court.
  • Costs of this Application are awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Notice of Appeal Filed
An applicant for stay of execution pending appeal must demonstrate that a notice of appeal has been lodged, the appeal has a likelihood of success, the application has been made without unreasonable delay, and substantial loss may result if the stay is not granted.
Stay of Execution — Competence of Appeal — Jurisdiction to Determine
Questions touching on the competence of an appeal, including whether leave was required, are matters properly within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to determine and not the function of the High Court in an application for stay of execution.
Stay of Execution — Unreasonable Delay — Five Month Delay
A delay of five months between delivery of judgment and filing of an application for stay of execution, coupled with failure to prosecute the application with urgency, is significant and weighs against the applicant but is not so inordinate as to be fatal to the application on its own.
Stay of Execution — Taxation of Costs — Whether Renders Appeal Nugatory
The taxation and enforcement of a costs order, while a burden on an applicant, is of a different character from execution of orders touching on transfer or sale of immovable property. A liquidated sum for costs can in principle be recovered or reversed upon a successful appeal and does not necessarily render the appeal nugatory.
Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Mandatory Requirement
Under Order 43 Rule 4(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules, an application for stay of execution pending appeal must be accompanied by security for the due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon the applicant.
Stay of Execution — Balance of Convenience — Conditional Grant
Where the conditions for grant of a stay of execution are not fully established, the court retains discretion to consider where the balance of convenience lies and may grant a conditional stay with stringent conditions that adequately protect the respondents' interests.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (7)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Theodore Sekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Formula Feeds Limited and 3 Others v KCB Bank Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Pan African Insurance Co. Ltd v International Air Transport Association (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2006)
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd and Another v Edward Musisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Dr. Ann Persis Nakate Lusejjere (Civil Application No. 29 of 2003)
  • Godfrey Kasujja and 7 Others v Paul Njawukana (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 242 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Annet Tumwebaze Mugasha v Tumuhairwe Moses and Another (Miscellaneous Application 6271 of 2025) [2026] UGHCFD 60 (21 May 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.