Wakilii

Engola & 7 Others v Nassolo & 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 1228 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 30 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal to the Court of Appeal from High Court judgment in Civil Suit No. 623 of 2017
Decision
Application dismissed; execution of underlying judgment in Civil Suit No. 623 of 2017 may proceed

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

Application for stay of execution of a land dispute judgment dismissed despite applicants meeting some procedural requirements. Court held that the grounds raised by applicants amounted to re-evaluation of the trial court's findings and could only be determined on appeal, rendering the trial court functus officio. Court also found no imminent threat of execution, no proof of substantial loss, and noted applicants failed to demonstrate that appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay not granted.

Outcome

Application dismissed; execution of underlying judgment in Civil Suit No. 623 of 2017 may proceed

Facts

Respondents obtained judgment in Civil Suit No. 623 of 2017 against executors of the estate of the late Willie Patrick Ogule and Springfield Secondary School, which operated a school on the disputed land. The High Court found that half of the land comprised in Kyadondo Block 93 Plot 7 at Jakana belonged to the estate of the late Kalasi Ayub (for whom respondents are beneficiaries) and ordered applicants to hand over possession within 30 days. The court also awarded general damages of UGX 30,000,000 and ordered the Registrar of Titles to register half the land in the name of the estate of Kalasi Ayub. Applicants filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal and sought stay of execution, arguing the appeal had prospects of success due to errors of law and fact, and that they would suffer irreparable harm if half the land was transferred before the appeal was heard. Respondents opposed, stating there was no threat of execution as no bailiff had been appointed and the grounds raised could only be determined on appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the application merits the grant of an order for stay of execution pending the determination of the appeal.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
An applicant for stay of execution pending appeal must satisfy the court that: (i) a notice of appeal has been filed; (ii) the application has been made without unreasonable delay; (iii) the appeal has a likelihood of success; (iv) substantial loss may result to the applicant unless stay is granted; and (v) security has been given for due performance of the decree.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Functus Officio Doctrine
A trial court is functus officio and cannot grant a stay of execution on grounds that require re-evaluation of its own decisions on the merits. Such grounds can only be determined on appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Imminent Threat Requirement
An applicant for stay of execution must prove an imminent threat of execution—a condition reasonably certain to place the applicant's interests in direct peril that is immediate and impending, not merely remote, uncertain, or contingent. Where an order to transfer title has not been implemented and no bailiff appointed, no imminent threat exists.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
Substantial loss refers to any loss great or small of real worth or value as distinguished from a loss that is merely nominal. Where no evidence is furnished that execution has commenced or is imminent, the applicant fails to prove substantial loss.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Appeal Not Rendered Nugatory
A stay of execution is not warranted where what is sought to be stayed, if allowed to happen, would be reversible or where damages would reasonably compensate the aggrieved party. Where title registration orders can be cancelled on appeal and restitution is available, the appeal will not be rendered nugatory if stay is refused.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (7)

  • Kyazze v Businge (S.C. Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Sekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (SCMA No. 3 of 2014)
  • Formular Feeds Limited and 3 Others v KCB Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2023)
  • Commissioner Customs Uganda Revenue Authority v Kayimba (CACA No. 62 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Kawanga v Namyalo Kevina and Another (HCMA No. 12 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Engola_&_7_Others_v_Nassolo_&_4_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_1228_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_30_(6_February_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.