Ejulu v Itobu (HCMA 160 of 2022)
Observed later treatment
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
Held that an application for stay of execution pending appeal must satisfy four conditions: filing of notice of appeal, substantial loss to the applicant if stay not granted, no unreasonable delay, and provision of security. The court found the application premature because the applicant had not yet responded to the notice to show cause why execution should not ensue under Order 22 rule 19. The applicant must first show cause at that stage before applying for stay of execution. Application dismissed with costs.
Outcome
Application for stay of execution dismissed as premature
Facts
The applicant filed an application for stay of execution of a decree in High Court Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2017 pending determination of his intended appeal to the Court of Appeal. The respondent had filed an application for execution (EMA No. 27 of 2022) seeking to execute costs of UGX 45,944,900 by arresting and detaining the applicant in civil prison. A notice to show cause why execution should not ensue was served on the applicant on 29 July 2022. The applicant filed this application on 11 November 2022 seeking stay of execution, arguing he would suffer irreparable loss and that his appeal had a high probability of success. The underlying dispute concerned land allegedly purchased by the applicant's father from Ali Nandi, which the appellate court found was an illegal transaction under the Land Transfer Act because Ali Nandi was a non-African without legal capacity to sell land in freehold tenure to Africans.
Issues
- Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for grant of a stay of execution pending appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
Cases cited (8)
- Singh v Runda Coffee Estates Ltd [1966] EA
- Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (SCCA No. 18 of 1990)
- Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
- Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
- GAPCO Uganda Ltd v Kaweesa and Another (MA No. 259 of 2013)
- Kawalya Kaggwa v Registrar of Titles [1974] EA 48
- Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] HCB 11
- John Baptista Kawanga v Namyalo Kevina and Another (MA No. 12 of 2017)
Cases citing this judgment (1)
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.