Wakilii

Deo Wandera v Housing Finance Bank Limited and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1052 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 304 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of part of the orders in Civil Suit No. 822 of 2018 pending appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the 3rd respondent

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 dismissed the application for stay of execution. The court held that the applicant failed to establish a likelihood of success on appeal, as the trial court had properly found the third respondent to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The applicant also failed to demonstrate substantial loss, as he had already been awarded compensation of UGX 200,000,000 for loss of his interest in the property. The balance of convenience favoured the third respondent, who was the registered proprietor and had been denied possession since 2018 while the applicant collected rent.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the 3rd respondent

Facts

The applicant instituted Civil Suit No. 822 of 2018 arising from a fraudulent mortgage executed by his mother (the 2nd defendant) over property he owned as a minor. The property was mortgaged to the 1st defendant bank for UGX 100,000,000 and subsequently sold to the 3rd defendant. On 26 March 2025, the trial court found the 3rd defendant to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and ordered the applicant and his mother to give vacant possession within three months. The court awarded the applicant UGX 200,000,000 in compensation and UGX 20,000,000 in general damages against the 1st and 2nd defendants. The applicant filed a notice of appeal and sought to stay the order for vacant possession pending appeal. The 3rd respondent opposed the application, arguing he had been denied possession since 2018 while the applicant collected rent from the property.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has satisfied the grounds for stay of execution of part of the orders in Civil Suit No. 822 of 2018 pending appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 3rd respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Likelihood of Success on Appeal
For a stay of execution pending appeal to be granted, the applicant must establish that the appeal has a likelihood of success by demonstrating that the grounds of appeal are arguable and have a realistic chance of succeeding, not merely that there is a possibility of success.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Meaning and Application
Substantial loss for purposes of stay of execution does not mean the ordinary loss to which every judgment debtor is subjected when losing a case, but must be something in addition to and different from such ordinary loss, and must be of real worth or value as distinguished from loss that is merely nominal.
Stay of Execution — Balance of Convenience — Registered Proprietor's Rights
Where a party has been found to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and is the registered proprietor, but has been denied possession while the unsuccessful party collects rent from the property, the balance of convenience favours granting the registered proprietor possession rather than staying execution.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (29)

  • National Union of Clerical, Commercial and Technical Employees v National Insurance Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Ssembuya Francis v All Port Freight Service Uganda Limited (Civil Application No. 15 of 1998)
  • Wilson vs Church (No2) (1879) 12 Ch.D.458
  • Haruna Sentongo v I & M Bank (U) Limited (Civil Application No. 3 of 2025)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kyambongo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Francis Wazarwahi Bwengye v Haki W. Bonera (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2009)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Uganda Bottlers Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 25 of 1995)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v The Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkudiye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
  • Miao Hua Xian v Namaganda Ltd (Civil Application No. 58 of 2024)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda v The East African Law Society and Another (EACA Application No. 1 of 2013)
  • Formula Feeds Limited and 3 Others v KCB Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Kampala International University v Housing Finance Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 559 of 2025)
  • Misaki Kaviiga v Musiime James (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 147 of 2024)
  • Osman Kassim v Century Bottling Company Ltd (Civil Application No. 34 of 2019)
  • Somali Democratic Republic v Anoop S. Sunderlal Treon (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 11 of 1988)
  • Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui vs Tony Ketter & Others [2013] e KLR
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd and Ors vs International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Lubega Moses v Nassimbwa Sylvie (Civil Application No. 189 of 2024)
  • Twongyeirwe Peter vs Muhumuza Peter
  • Kiiza Sanyu v Emojong John (Civil Application No. 130 of 2024)
  • American Cyanamide vs Ethicon [1975]1 ALL E.R. 504
  • Giella vs Cassman Brown & Co. [1973] E.A 358
  • National Enterprises Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 1998)
  • Muhorro Town Council v Rutalihamu Jacob (Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2022)
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board vs Coget Cotton Co. S.A [1995-1998] E.A 312
  • Kabarema Adonia v Natukunda Marion (Miscellaneous Application No. 264 of 2021)
  • Jayndrakumar Devechand Devani v Haridas Vallabhdas Bhadresa and Another (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1971)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Deo Wandera v Housing Finance Bank Limited and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1052 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 304 (13 June 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.