Wakilii

Aupal Kokas v Aisu Popuras (Miscellaneous Application No. 52 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHC 105 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of High Court judgment pending appeal
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 while the applicant lodged a notice of appeal, critical conditions for stay were not met: no pending execution application existed, no security was deposited as mandated by Order 43 rule 4(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss or likelihood of success on appeal given the trial court's finding of illegal acquisition of land through underhand means.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant applied to lease a plot of land in Kumi Town Council in 2011, which housed electricity transformers. He removed the transformers at his own cost and was granted a lease with certificate of title issued on 7 August 2013. The respondent subsequently sued in Civil Suit No. 21 of 2015, claiming the land was part of his father's customary land. On 18 March 2022, the High Court declared the land belonged to the respondent and ordered cancellation of the applicant's certificate of title. The applicant filed a notice of appeal and this application seeking stay of execution pending appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfies the necessary grounds for grant of stay of execution under Order 43 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Mandatory Requirements
An applicant seeking stay of execution must satisfy all conditions under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules: filing a notice of appeal, demonstrating substantial loss, acting without unreasonable delay, and providing security for due performance of the decree. Failure to fulfil any mandatory condition leaves the court with no option but to dismiss the application.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Absence of Pending Execution Application
Courts should not order a stay of execution where there is no evidence of a pending application for execution of the decree. Once an appeal is pending and there is a serious threat of execution before the hearing of the appeal, the court intervenes to serve substantive justice, but absent such threat, stay should not be granted.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Mandatory Requirement
The provision of Order 43 rule 4(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules requiring security for due performance of the decree is couched in mandatory terms as a precondition for grant of stay of execution. A mere statement of willingness to furnish security without actual deposit is insufficient to satisfy this requirement.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Protection of Decree Holder's Rights
A party who has obtained a lawful decree should not be deprived of the fruits of that decree except for good cause and cogent reasons. So long as the decree is not set aside by a competent court, it stands good and effective and should not be lightly dealt with. A decree passed by a competent court should be allowed to be executed unless a strong case is made out on cogent grounds.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Illegality Cannot Be Condoned
Where a trial court has found that acquisition of land was fraught with illegalities and underhand practices, an applicant seeking stay of execution pending appeal cannot demonstrate likelihood of success on appeal, as an illegality once brought to the attention of a court of law cannot be condoned.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (9)

  • Singh v Runda Coffee Estates Ltd [1966] EA
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businge (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tadjaudin Hussein and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2008)
  • Baguma Paul t/a Panache Associates v Eng. Karuma Kagyina (Miscellaneous Application No. 460 of 2020)
  • Orient Bank Ltd v Zaabwe and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 19 of 2007)
  • Global Capital Save 2004 Ltd v Alice Okiror and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 485 of 2012)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] HCB 11

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Aupal Kokas v Aisu Popuras (Miscellaneous Application No. 52 of 2022) [2022] UGHC 105 (6 September 2022)
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.