Wakilii

Francis Egessa Luhiho v Ojambo Vicent (Miscellaneous Application No. 0003 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1031 · 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
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed

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 High Court dismissed an application for stay of execution pending appeal to the Court of Appeal. The court held that while the first two conditions for stay were satisfied—substantial loss may result from taxation proceedings and the application was brought without unreasonable delay—the applicant failed to satisfy the third condition. The applicant neither furnished security for due performance of the decree nor demonstrated that the pending appeal had a likelihood of success. Since all required conditions were not proved, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No.01 of 2022 against the respondent at the Chief Magistrate's Court of Busia claiming land. The suit was dismissed with costs. The applicant filed Civil Appeal No.28 of 2023 in the High Court, which was also dismissed with costs and the lower court's judgment was upheld. The applicant then filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal against the High Court's judgment. The respondent filed Taxation Application No.0047 of 2024 to tax costs. The applicant brought this miscellaneous application seeking to stay execution of the High Court judgment and to stay enforcement of orders by way of taxation of the respondent's bill of costs pending determination of the Court of Appeal appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the application satisfies conditions for grant of an order for stay of execution?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Three-Part Test
For an application for stay of execution to succeed under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the applicant must prove three conditions: (1) that substantial loss may result to the applicant; (2) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (3) that the applicant has given security for due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him or her.
Stay of Execution — Taxation of Costs as Threat of Execution
Execution is a process and not an event, and the process includes extraction of a decree and taxation of costs. An application for taxation of costs constitutes a threat of execution sufficient to ground an application for stay of execution. An applicant need not wait for issuance of a warrant in execution before applying for a stay.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Meaning and Application
The phrase 'substantial loss' does not represent any particular amount or size and cannot be quantified by any particular mathematical formula. It refers to any loss great or small of real worth or value as distinguished from a loss that is merely nominal. Loss occasioned by arrest or attachment of property during the pendency of an appeal, associated with emotional pain, inconvenience, and physical embarrassment, constitutes substantial loss as it is almost impossible to compensate.
Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Not Mandatory but Requires Likelihood of Success
The condition requiring security for due performance of a decree is not mandatory and each case is to be determined on its merits. However, where security for due performance has not been paid, the court must establish whether the applicant's appeal has a likelihood of success. The decision whether to order security for due performance must be in consonance with the probability of success of the appeal, to guard against frivolous and vexatious appeals which may never succeed and escalate costs of litigation.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 R.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 R.3
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap.282 s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 R.4(3)

Cases cited (9)

  • Mangeni Dismas Wejuli v Magero Alfred & 2 Others (HCMA No. 57 of 2023)
  • Juma Osman v Maishalla Miraji (HCMA No. 23 of 2023)
  • Lawrence Musititwa Kyazze v Eunice Businge (SCCA No. 18 of 1990)
  • Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v Attorney General & Others (SCCA No. 06 of 2013)
  • Adupo Florence v Atuto Jacinto (HCMA No. 041 of 2021)
  • Osman Kassim Ramathan v Century Bottling Company (SCCA No. 35 of 2019)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd & Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Steve Sahabo v Larissa Kaneza (HCMA No. 524 of 2019)
  • Kawanga v Namyalo & Anor (HCMA No. 12 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Francis Egessa Luhiho v Ojambo Vicent (Miscellaneous Application No. 0003 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 1031 (12 September 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.