Wakilii

City Council of Kampala v Musisi Sekyaya (Civil Application 3 of 2000)

Court of Appeal · [2000] UGCA 33 · 2000 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 30 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 30 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 31 citing cases on record, 13 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 of Appeal dismissed an application for stay of execution pending appeal. The applicant relied solely on the ground that it would suffer irreparable loss and loss of public funds if the stay were refused. The Court held that irreparable loss means loss that cannot be adequately atoned for by payment of money. Since the decree was for a sum of money that could be satisfied by payment, and the judgment debt was not so substantial as to cripple the applicant, no substantial or irreparable loss was established. The Court found no merit in the application and dismissed it with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs

Facts

The respondent had sued the applicant in the High Court (Civil Suit No. 60 of 1993) for special and general damages arising from wrongful demolition of premises where the respondent carried on business, wrongful detention of his properties, and his unlawful arrest and detention. On 21 January 1999 the trial judge awarded the respondent Shs 1,257,000 in special damages and Shs 4,000,000 in general damages, with interest on the decretal amount and costs. Dissatisfied, the applicant lodged a notice of appeal on 30 March 1999 and applied to the High Court for a stay of execution, which was dismissed on 11 February 2000. The applicant then filed this application in the Court of Appeal on 21 February 2000 seeking a stay of execution pending appeal, relying chiefly on the ground that it would suffer irreparable loss and loss of public funds because the respondent was a man of humble means who could not refund the decretal sum if he lost the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant would suffer substantial or irreparable loss if a stay of execution were not granted pending appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution Pending Appeal — Meaning of Substantial or Irreparable Loss
Irreparable loss, as a ground for stay of execution pending appeal, means loss that cannot be adequately atoned for by payment of money; where the decree is for a money sum that can be satisfied by payment, no irreparable loss arises.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
An applicant for stay of execution must show, among the conditions set out by the Supreme Court, that it will suffer substantial loss unless the stay is granted; a money judgment that would not cripple the applicant does not satisfy this requirement.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Development Ltd and others Vs Uganda Pobbaes Ltd, Civil Application No. 28 of 1999
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businge (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)

Cases citing this judgment (30)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

City Council of Kampala v Musisi Sekyaya (Civil Application 3 of 2000) [2000] UGCA 33 (4 October 2000)
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.