Wakilii

Edith Muyinza Mukasa v Luwanga Chaitids and NakiniU M I I D I F [2025] UGHC 330

High Court · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review and setting aside of conditional order requiring security for costs in a stay of execution application
Decision
Application for review 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 dismissed the application for review. The imposition of security for costs as a condition for stay of execution was an exercise of judicial discretion, not an error apparent on the face of the record. An error apparent on the face of the record must be manifest and clear without requiring extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. The trial judge in the underlying application consciously exercised discretion acknowledging that no costs had been ordered in the original suit, but considered the delay and prejudice to the respondent in accessing the fruits of judgment. This exercise of discretion cannot be challenged as an error apparent on the face of the record.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs

Facts

The 1st respondent sued Eric Mukasa in HCCS No. 551 of 2017 for cancellation of his registration as proprietor of land. Eric Mukasa passed away and the applicant was appointed administrator ad litem of his estate. On 11 April 2024, the court ordered cancellation of the late Eric Mukasa's registration but did not condemn the applicant to costs. The applicant appealed the judgment vide Civil Appeal No. 329 of 2024 and applied for stay of execution in Miscellaneous Application No. 1319 of 2024. On 17 October 2024, the court granted a conditional stay of execution on condition that the applicant deposit UGX 30,000,000 as security for costs within 30 days. The applicant filed this review application seeking to set aside the conditional order on grounds that it was an error apparent on the face of the record since she had never been condemned to costs in the original suit.

Issues

  1. Whether there is sufficient cause to review and set aside the conditional order in Miscellaneous Application No. 1319 of 2024 requiring the applicant to deposit UGX 30,000,000 as security for costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Exercise of Judicial Discretion Distinguished
An error apparent on the face of the record must be manifest and clear without requiring extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. The exercise of judicial discretion, even where a party disagrees with the outcome, does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.
Stay of Execution — Security for Costs — Court's Discretion
A court may impose conditions for granting a stay of execution, including requiring security for costs, in the exercise of its discretion. The imposition of such a condition is not an error merely because the applicant was not condemned to costs in the original suit, where the court exercises discretion judiciously considering factors such as delay and prejudice to the successful party in accessing the fruits of judgment.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (4)

  • East African Holding Ltd vs Madhivani
  • Attorney-General of the Gambia v N'Jie [1961] 2 All ER 504
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (SCCA No. 06 of 2004)
  • Yahaya Kariisa v Attorney General (SCCA No. 07 of 1994)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Edith Muyinza Mukasa v Luwanga Chaitids and NakiniU M I I D I F 2025 UGHC 330 (9 May 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.