Wakilii

Bandeeba v Rwantebe & Another (Miscellaneous Application 236 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 404 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of High Court decree pending appeal to Court of Appeal
Decision
Application dismissed; costs deferred until determination of pending appeal

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 dismissed an application for stay of execution pending appeal. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate a serious and imminent threat of execution, as the original decree contained no executable orders such as eviction, vacant possession, or costs. There was no pending execution application and the respondents had not sought consequential orders. The applicant also failed to offer security for due performance of the decree.

Outcome

Application dismissed; costs deferred until determination of pending appeal

Facts

The applicant had instituted Civil Suit No. 26 of 2020 against the respondents for trespass on his land. The High Court dismissed the suit with no order as to costs and made no orders for vacant possession or eviction. The applicant filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal and applied for stay of execution of the High Court's orders. The applicant alleged that the first respondent continued to graze cattle on the disputed land. The respondents opposed the application, arguing that the original decree contained no executable orders and there was no threat of execution.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for a stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. Whether there was a serious and imminent threat of execution of the decree.
  3. Whether the orders in the decree were executable.

Orders

  • The Application is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
  • The costs of this Application will be collected by the Respondents at the determination of the Applicant's appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Threat of Execution
For a stay of execution to be granted pending appeal, the applicant must demonstrate a serious and imminent threat of execution of the decree; where the decree contains no executable orders such as eviction, vacant possession, or payment of costs, there is no threat of execution to stay.
Stay of Execution — Grounds for Grant
The grounds for granting a stay of execution are: (1) that the applicant has lodged a notice of appeal; (2) that the appeal is not frivolous; (3) that there is a serious and imminent threat of execution of the decree; (4) that the application was made without unreasonable delay; and (5) that the applicant is prepared to grant security for due performance of the decree.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.26
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.89
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.4(3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Francis Nansio Micah v Nuwa Walakira (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1990)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omollo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 340 of 2013)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bandeeba v Rwantebe & Another (Miscellaneous Application 236 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 404 (7 August 2023)
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.