Basiime v Ssekatawa & Another (Miscellaneous Application 262 of 2022)

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.

Holding

Held that an application for stay of execution pending appeal will be granted where the applicant has lodged a notice of appeal, the application was made without unreasonable delay, and there is imminent threat of execution. However, the court must balance the applicant's right to appeal against the respondent's right to timely justice and enjoyment of the fruits of litigation. Where the decree involves monetary obligations and the successful party will suffer delayed justice, the applicant must deposit reasonable security for due performance of the decree as a condition for the stay.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted conditionally upon deposit of UGX 35,000,000 as security within three months; execution may issue if security not deposited

Facts

The applicant had instituted Civil Suit No. 53 of 2017 against the respondents for trespass on his land. The 1st respondent counterclaimed for 15 acres which had been occupied by her deceased mother. The High Court dismissed the applicant's suit, directed him to vacate the 1st respondent's land, and awarded the 1st respondent general damages of UGX 30,000,000 and exemplary damages of UGX 10,000,000, both with interest at 16% per annum, plus costs. The respondents' bills of costs were taxed and allowed at UGX 19,985,000 and UGX 14,895,000 respectively. The applicant filed a notice of appeal and instituted Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2022. The respondents obtained a notice to show cause why execution should not issue. The applicant then filed this application for stay of execution pending appeal.

Issues

1. Whether there is sufficient cause for stay of execution of the High Court decree pending appeal.

Orders

• Application allowed with no order as to costs.
• Applicant to deposit partial security for due performance of the decree of UGX 35,000,000 in court within three months from the date of delivery of this ruling.
• The security deposit shall be refunded to the applicant if all orders in the decree are reversed by the Court of Appeal.
• If the orders in the decree are not reversed, the monies shall be paid out to the respondents with immediate effect.
• Applicant to serve counsel for the respondents with the court's acknowledgement of receipt of the security deposit immediately.
• Execution temporarily stayed for three months to enable the applicant to deposit the security.
• In default of depositing the security, execution may issue against the applicant without further notice.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 22 rule 23(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 22 rule 26
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 22 rule 89
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 4(3)
• Court of Appeal Rules rule 76
• Court of Appeal Rules rule 105(1)

Cases cited (7)

• Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
• Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v The Attorney General & Another (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
• Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v The Attorney General & Another (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
• National Housing and Construction Corporation v Kampala District Land Board & Another (No. 6 of 2002)
• Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omollo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 340 of 2013)
• Aupal Kokas Wilfred v Aisu Popuras
• Asiimwe Francis v Tumwongyeirwe Aflod (Miscellaneous Application No. 103 of 2011)

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