Wakilii

Charles Ggingo Mujje v Teopista And Jesus Holding (U) Ltd and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2532 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 58 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of decree pending appeal, arising from preliminary objection to validity of decree
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed; decree set aside; 1st Respondent directed to extract decree in accordance with proper procedure

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 held that a decree extracted without the participation and approval of the successful party as required by Order 21 Rule 7(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules is invalid. The applicant's failure to involve the successful respondent in the decree extraction process constituted an omission of an essential procedural step, rendering the decree irregularly extracted. The court cannot stay execution of a decree procured contrary to set procedures. The preliminary objection was allowed, the decree set aside, and the application for stay of execution dismissed.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed; decree set aside; 1st Respondent directed to extract decree in accordance with proper procedure

Facts

The applicant sought a stay of execution of a decree in Civil Suit No. 518 of 2020 pending appeal. The decree ordered the applicant's eviction from land comprised in FRV 1531, Folio 24, Plot 1, Martin Road within 90 days of judgment delivered on 24 September 2025. The applicant claimed he was the rightful owner having purchased the land bonafide and had lodged a notice of appeal. The 1st respondent raised a preliminary objection that the decree was invalid because it was not extracted by the successful party (the respondents) and was not approved by the parties as required by Order 21 Rule 7(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant admitted he moved court to extract the decree because the respondents delayed, arguing the decree reflected the judgment and caused no prejudice.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application was an abuse of court process because it was fixed for hearing on 27th January, 2025 at 3:00pm which date was fixed before Civil Suit No. 518 of 2020 was heard and determined?
  2. Whether the decree for which this Application is seeking a stay of execution is invalid?

Orders

  • The preliminary objection by the 1st Respondent on the decree from which the Applicant is seeking a stay of execution being invalid is allowed.
  • The decree extracted from the Judgment of Civil Suit No. 518 of 2020 is hereby 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 is hereby dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded to the 1st Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Decree Extraction — Mandatory Participation of Successful Party
Order 21 Rule 7(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules requires the successful party to prepare a draft decree and submit it for approval of the other parties, who shall approve it with or without amendment or reject it. This procedure mandates active participation of the parties in decree extraction, and the right of the successful party to participate cannot be ignored.
Civil Procedure — Decree Extraction — Invalidity for Procedural Irregularity
A decree extracted without the participation and approval of the successful party as required by Order 21 Rule 7(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules is irregularly extracted and invalid. Where the law prescribes an essential step in proceedings and parties omit to take that step, an order or decree subsequently made by court in misapprehension of the omission cannot validate the decree.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Invalid Decree
A court cannot stay the execution of a decree that was procured contrary to set procedures. Where a decree is found to be invalid due to procedural irregularity in its extraction, an application for stay of execution of that decree must be dismissed.
Civil Procedure — Decree Extraction — Proper Procedure Where Successful Party Delays
Where the successful party delays to extract a decree, the proper procedure is for the other party to move the Registrar to summon the successful party to give reasons for the delay and to show cause why a decree should not be extracted. The other party should not move the Registrar to extract a decree without the participation of the successful party.

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_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._2532_of_2025)_[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.