Wakilii

Apunyo v Atim Obua (Civil Application 206 of 2020)

Court of Appeal · [2020] UGCA 2168 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal for an interim stay of execution pending determination of the main application for stay
Decision
Application for interim stay of execution dismissed

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

A single Justice of the Court of Appeal held that the Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court over interim applications for stay of execution. Although a notice of appeal had been lodged and a substantive stay application was pending, the applicant failed to demonstrate a serious and imminent threat of execution: no decree extraction or warrant of execution was shown, and the photographs relied on did not establish the alleged interference. Filing a notice of appeal alone is not a compelling reason to grant a stay. Because the threat-of-execution condition was unmet, the interim stay was refused and the application dismissed with costs abiding the cause.

Outcome

Application for interim stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The respondent sued the applicant over disputed land in the Magistrate's Court, and the suit was dismissed in the applicant's favour in 2018, with the respondent ordered to pay costs. On appeal to the High Court, the appellate judge set aside the trial court's decrees, re-instated the suit land to the respondent, and ordered the applicant to pay costs in both courts. The applicant, dissatisfied, filed a notice of appeal, applied for certified copies of proceedings, and filed the present application for an interim stay of execution pending determination of the main stay application (Civil Application No. 205 of 2020). The applicant claimed the respondent had partly taken possession of the land, denied him and his workers access, dug a well, and destroyed crops ready for harvest, causing irreparable loss. The respondent contended no one was using the land, the photographs relied on were old, and there was no threat of execution as no decree or warrant had issued.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the interim application for stay of execution given that applications were pending in the High Court.
  2. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for grant of an interim stay of execution, in particular whether there was a serious and imminent threat of execution.

Orders

  • The interim order of stay of execution is declined.
  • The application is dismissed.
  • Costs shall abide the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Jurisdiction — Concurrent Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal and High Court
The Court of Appeal has concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court over interim applications for stay of execution pending determination of the main application; where an application may be made in either court it should be made first in the High Court, but the Court of Appeal may intervene where the High Court refuses jurisdiction, refuses for manifestly wrong reasons, or where there is great delay.
Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Serious and Imminent Threat of Execution
An interim stay of execution will not be granted unless the applicant establishes a serious and imminent threat of execution; the mere filing of a notice of appeal is not by itself a compelling reason to grant a stay, and absent evidence of an extracted decree or warrant of execution no such threat is made out.
Stay of Execution — Interim Orders — Exceptional Circumstances
An interim order of stay of execution deprives the judgment holder of the benefit of the judgment and should therefore be granted only in compelling or exceptional circumstances to prevent a defeat of justice, and pending an ascertained hearing of the substantive application by the full Court.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.98
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.34
  • Judicature Act Cap.13 s.12
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.42(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.42(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.43(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.44(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.76

Cases cited (4)

  • Zubeda Mohammed & Anor v Lalla Kaka Wallla & anor Supreme Court Civil Reference No. 02 of 2016
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businge (Civil Application No. 78 of 1990)
  • E.B. Ngakaana and Sons Limited v Beatrice Kobusinge (Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2017)
  • Kyambogo University v Ndiege (Civil Application No. 347 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Apunyo v Atim Obua (Civil Application 206 of 2020) [2020] UGCA 2168 (30 October 2020)
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.