Wakilii

Elungat and Othrs v Mai (Civil Miscellaneous Application 174 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 130 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of High Court Civil Appeal No. 015 of 2018 pending determination of a second appeal in the Court of Appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed as premature in absence of pending execution application

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

Held that an application for stay of execution is premature and lacks merit where there is no pending application for execution filed by the respondent. The essential element of eminent threat of execution must be proved by evidence of a pending execution application that may result in substantial loss to the applicant. Courts should not order a stay where there is no evidence of an application for execution of a decree. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed as premature in absence of pending execution application

Facts

The applicants sought stay of execution of a decree in High Court Civil Appeal No. 015 of 2018 delivered on 8 June 2022, pending determination of their second appeal to the Court of Appeal. The applicants argued they would suffer substantial and irreparable loss if execution proceeded. The respondent opposed, stating there was no pending execution application and no eminent threat warranting a stay. The respondent further contended the purported second appeal was erroneously based on mixed fact and law. The applicants had filed their appeal to the Court of Appeal but had not demonstrated any actual threat of execution proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution should be granted pending the hearing and determination of the applicants' appeal in the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether there exists an eminent threat of execution warranting a stay order.

Orders

  • This application is premature and lacks merit as there is no eminent threat of execution.
  • This application is dismissed.
  • Costs of this premature application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Prerequisites — Eminent Threat of Execution
An application for stay of execution is premature and will be dismissed where there is no pending application for execution filed by the respondent, as the essential element of eminent threat of execution must be proved by evidence of such a pending execution application.
Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
The conditions for granting stay of execution under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules include: (a) the applicant must show that notice of appeal has been lodged; (b) substantial loss may result to the applicant unless stay is granted; (c) the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (d) the applicant has given security for due performance of the decree.
Stay of Execution — General Rule on Timing
The general rule is that courts should not order a stay where there is no evidence of an application for execution of a decree, and an application for stay in such circumstances is premature.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Hon Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v The Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tadjaudin Hussein and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2008)
  • Baguma Paul t/a Panache Associates v Eng. Karuma Kagyina (Miscellaneous Application No. 460 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Elungat and Othrs v Mai (Civil Miscellaneous Application 174 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 130 (5 May 2023)
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.