Wakilii

Charles Ggingo Mujje v Teopista And Jesus Holding (U) Ltd and Others [2026] UGHCLD 58

High Court · 2026 Preliminary Objection Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on a preliminary objection raised in an application for stay of execution pending appeal
Decision
Preliminary objection upheld; decree set aside and the 1st Respondent directed to extract a proper decree; application for stay of execution dismissed with costs

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 court rejected the contention that the application was an abuse of process, finding on the record that it was fixed for hearing on 27 January 2026, some four months after judgment in the underlying suit. However, it upheld the objection that the decree sought to be stayed was invalid. Order 21 rule 7(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules imposes a duty on the successful party to prepare a draft decree and requires the active participation and approval of the other parties. Where the unsuccessful party procures extraction of a decree from the Registrar without that participation, an essential step is omitted and the decree is irregular and invalid. The decree was set aside and the application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Preliminary objection upheld; decree set aside and the 1st Respondent directed to extract a proper decree; application for stay of execution dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant and another party sued the respondents in Civil Suit No. 518 of 2020, a consolidation of Civil Suit No. 620 of 2013 and Civil Suit No. 19 of 2014. Judgment was delivered on 24 September 2025 against the applicant, ordering his eviction from land comprised in FRV 1531 Folio 24, Plot 1 Martin Road, and directing him to give vacant possession to the 1st respondent within 90 days. The 90-day period expired on 24 December 2025 and the applicant alleged threatened execution, including attempts to evict his tenants and threats to demolish the building. Having lodged a notice of appeal and requested typed proceedings, he applied for a stay of execution pending appeal. The decree annexed to the application was not extracted by the 1st respondent, the successful party, but was extracted at the applicant's instance and signed by the Assistant Registrar without the 1st respondent's participation or approval; it was dated 4 December 2025. The 1st respondent raised a preliminary objection challenging the validity of the decree and alleging abuse of process because the hearing date allegedly preceded determination of the suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution was an abuse of court process on the ground that it had been fixed for hearing before the underlying suit was heard and determined.
  2. Whether the decree in respect of which a stay of execution was sought was invalid because it was extracted by the unsuccessful party without the participation and approval of the successful party contrary to Order 21 rule 7(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection by the 1st Respondent that the decree from which the Applicant seeks a stay of execution is invalid is allowed.
  • The decree extracted from the Judgment in Civil Suit No. 518 of 2020 is set aside.
  • The 1st Respondent is directed to extract a decree arising from the Judgment in Civil Suit No. 518 of 2020 in accordance with Order 21 rule 7(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1.
  • The Application for stay of execution is dismissed, the Court being unable to stay execution of a decree procured contrary to set procedures.
  • Costs are awarded to the 1st Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Abuse of Court Process — Allegation Contradicted by the Court Record
An allegation that an application is an abuse of court process because its hearing date preceded determination of the underlying suit fails where the court record shows the hearing date fell after judgment was delivered.
Civil Procedure — Decrees — Duty of the Successful Party to Extract under Order 21 rule 7(2)
Order 21 rule 7(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules places the duty to prepare and submit a draft decree on the successful party, and the extraction process requires the active participation of the other parties, who may approve the draft with or without amendment or reject it.
Civil Procedure — Decrees — Extraction Without Participation of the Successful Party — Invalidity
A decree extracted at the instance of the unsuccessful party and sealed by a Registrar without the participation or approval of the successful party omits an essential step in the proceedings and is irregular and invalid, notwithstanding that its terms mirror the judgment.
Civil Procedure — Rules of Procedure as Handmaidens of Justice — Limits Where an Essential Step Is Omitted
The principle that rules of procedure are handmaidens of justice does not excuse omission of a procedural step that secures a party's right of participation, where that omission is likely to prejudice the party excluded from the process.
Civil Procedure — Decrees — Proper Remedy Where the Successful Party Delays Extraction
Where the successful party delays extracting a decree, the proper course for the other party is to move the Registrar to summon that party to show cause why a decree should not be extracted, rather than to procure extraction unilaterally.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — No Stay of a Decree Procured Contrary to Procedure
A court will not grant a stay of execution in respect of a decree that was procured contrary to the prescribed procedure and has been found invalid.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Charles Ggingo Mujje v Teopista And Jesus Holding (U) Ltd and Others [2026] UGHCLD 58 (23 March 2026)
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.