Wakilii

Etima Ramathan Veve and Another v Joint Medical Stores (Miscellaneous Application 1891 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 260 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of costs order pending appeal to Court of Appeal
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the 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

Application for stay of execution dismissed. Court held that although a notice of appeal had been filed, the application was made with unreasonable delay (five years after the underlying suit was dismissed) and was premature as no actual execution proceedings had commenced. A demand notice for payment of taxed costs does not constitute commencement of execution proceedings under Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

Rukiya Rajab instituted Civil Suit No. 127 of 2007 seeking a declaration of ownership of land. The suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 2 December 2019. The applicants, as administrators of Rukiya Rajab's estate, filed Miscellaneous Application No. 1983 of 2019 to set aside the dismissal, which was dismissed on 13 March 2020 with costs to the respondent. The respondent's bill of costs was taxed at UGX 36,069,000 on 18 March 2024. A demand notice for payment within seven days was served on 24 June 2024. The applicants filed this application for stay of execution on 15 July 2024, citing a pending appeal (Court of Appeal No. 286 of 2022) filed in March 2020.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants have met the conditions for grant of an order for stay of execution against the Judgment and Decree of this court vide C.S. 127 of 2007.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Unreasonable Delay
An application for stay of execution filed almost five years after the dismissal of the underlying suit and only after a demand notice for payment of taxed costs constitutes unreasonable delay, particularly where the applicant appears to be seeking to avoid payment rather than preserve the subject matter of appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Premature Application
A demand notice for payment of taxed costs does not constitute commencement of execution proceedings under Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules. An application for stay of execution is premature where no actual execution proceedings have been undertaken, and no stay can be granted unless a strong case is made out on cogent grounds.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements Under Order 43 Rule 4
For a stay of execution to be granted under Order 43 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the applicant must satisfy three cumulative conditions: substantial loss may result unless the order is made; the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and security has been given for due performance of the decree. Failure to satisfy any one condition is fatal to the application.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (6)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Theodore Sekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Professor Isiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (HCMA No. 379 of 2003)
  • Baguma Paul Panache Associates v Eng. Karuma Kagyina (HCMA No. 460 of 2020)
  • Orient Bank Ltd v Fredrick Zaabwe and Others (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 19 of 2007)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Etima_Ramathan_Veve_and_Another_v_Joint_Medical_Stores_(Miscellaneous_Application_1891_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_260_(18_June_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.