Burwani and Another v Balikurungi and Another (Civil Application 720 of 2024)
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
Sitting as a single Justice of Appeal, the court held that the applicants had satisfied the conditions for a stay of execution: they had lodged a notice and memorandum of appeal raising arguable grounds of law; there was an imminent threat of execution being pursued by administrators of the deceased decree-holder's estate who had not been formally added to the proceedings; and, being in long physical possession of the disputed land, they would suffer substantial, irreparable loss not compensable in money if eviction proceeded before the appeal was heard. The application was allowed, execution stayed and the status quo of the suit land preserved pending determination of the appeal.
Outcome
Application allowed; execution of the High Court decree stayed and the status quo of the suit land maintained pending determination of Civil Appeal No. 047 of 2020
Facts
The late Philip Kizige Balikurungi sued the applicants in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Masindi at Biiso (Civil Suit No. 002 of 2013) over land. The Magistrate's Court dismissed the suit with costs. On appeal, the High Court at Masindi (Civil Appeal No. 050 of 2013) reversed that decision and decreed that the suit land belonged to Balikurungi. The applicants, who are in long physical possession of the land, appealed to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 047 of 2020), which is yet to be heard. After Balikurungi died, the respondents, as administrators of his estate, commenced execution of the High Court decree and a notice to show cause was issued, although the respondents had not formally been substituted or added to the proceedings. An earlier application for stay before the High Court had been dismissed. The applicants then sought a stay of execution and temporary injunction from the Court of Appeal.
Issues
- Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for the grant of a stay of execution pending the determination of their appeal.
- Whether, in the alternative, a temporary injunction should issue to restrain the respondents from interfering with the status quo of the suit land.
Orders
- An order of stay of execution of the decree in High Court Civil Appeal No. 050 of 2013 until the determination of Civil Appeal No. 047 of 2020 in the Court of Appeal.
- The status quo of the suit land at Biiso, Buliisa District be maintained until the appeal is heard and determined.
- Costs shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
- Judicature Act Cap 16 s.12
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.2
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.6(2)
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.42
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.44(1)
- Constitution (Land Eviction) Practice Direction 2021
Cases cited (3)
- Kalyeboga Annoloonaris v Hussein Muhammed (Civil Application No. 740 of 2023)
- Kyamboso University v Prof. Isiah Oundo Ndiege (Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2015)
- Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Ltd v Citibank Uganda Ltd and 2 Others (HCMA No. 1397 of 2022)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.