Wakilii

Byamugisha and Others v Kasisiri and Another (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 074 OF 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 236 · 2025 Application Granted with Conditions 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
Stay of execution granted on condition of payment of security

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

The High Court granted a stay of execution of a decree pending appeal, conditioned on the applicants depositing UGX 200,000,000 as security for due performance of the decree. The court found that the appeal had arguable grounds with a likelihood of success and that the application was filed without unreasonable delay. However, the court held that the applicants failed to prove they would suffer substantial loss, as they did not provide evidence of ownership of structures on the suit land. The stay was granted primarily on the basis that appeal is a right, but security was required given the circumstances.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted on condition of payment of security

Facts

The respondents successfully sued the applicants in Civil Suit No. 46 of 2023 (formerly MSD HCCS No. 36 of 2012) and obtained a judgment on 22 May 2023 declaring them the lawful owners of land comprised in Buhaguzi, Block 2 Plot 6, Mahamba Kyangwali, Hoima, with general damages of UGX 400,000,000. The applicants filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal on 13 June 2023. The respondents filed a bill of costs and threatened execution. The applicants then filed this application on 23 June 2023 seeking a stay of execution pending the appeal. Evidence indicated that the 1st applicant purchased the suit land around 2003 when it was empty, and subsequently sold portions to the 3rd and 4th applicants in 2005 and 2006. The original suit was filed in 2009. The respondents alleged that structures on the land were built by strangers to whom the applicants alienated parts of the land during the pendency of the suit in contempt of court orders.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for a stay of execution under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the applicants' appeal has a likelihood of success.
  3. Whether the application was filed without unreasonable delay.
  4. Whether the applicants would suffer substantial loss if the stay is not granted.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution granted on condition that the applicants deposit in court UGX 200,000,000 as security for due performance of the decree.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Conditions under Order 43 rule 4(3) CPR
For a stay of execution to be granted under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court must be satisfied that: (a) substantial loss may result to the party applying unless the order is made; (b) the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (c) security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon them.
Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success of Appeal
A likelihood of success refers to the plausibility that the applicant's appeal will be successful, indicating a strong possibility of overturning the judgment or order being appealed. An arguable appeal need not necessarily succeed, but must be one that ought to be argued fully before the court and is not frivolous. The court must not make definitive or final findings of fact or law at the stay application stage as doing so may embarrass the ultimate hearing of the main appeal.
Stay of Execution — Proof of Substantial Loss
An applicant for stay of execution must go beyond vague and general assertions of substantial loss and lay the basis upon which the court can make a finding that substantial loss will occur. The loss must be over and above ordinary loss. Merely attaching photographs of buildings without proof of ownership is insufficient to demonstrate substantial loss.
Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance of Decree
Where an appeal is a right but the applicant has failed to prove substantial loss, the court may nevertheless grant a stay of execution on condition that the applicant provides security for due performance of the decree. The amount of security is determined by the value of the subject matter and the amount of the decree including damages awarded.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • Dr. Ahmed Muhammed Kisuule v Greenland Bank (in liquidation) (SCMA No. 7 of 2010)
  • Juna Co. (T) Ltd & 2 Ors v DFCU Bank Ltd (HCMA No. 027 of 2023)
  • Beeline Travel Care (U) Ltd v Finance Trust Bank (CACA No. 67 of 2023)
  • Pan African Insurance Co. Ltd v International Air Transport Association (HCMA No. 86 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Byamugisha and Others v Kasisiri and Another (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 074 OF 2023) [2025] UGHC 236 (3 February 2025)
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.