Wakilii

Gasasira v Bataringaya (Civil Application 68 of 2025)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 94 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution pending appeal, following the High Court's grant of a conditional stay
Decision
Application for stay of execution granted; respondent restrained from executing the High Court decree pending appeal, the applicant to deposit a certificate of title as security in lieu of a cash deposit

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 single Justice held the application was competently brought under Rules 2(2), 6(2)(b) and 42 of the Court of Appeal Rules, which confer independent discretion not bound by the High Court's reasoning. A fresh application to the Court of Appeal was not res judicata where the High Court had imposed an onerous security condition, and an unsuccessful party's attempts to forestall execution pending appeal did not amount to contempt. Security for due performance is not a condition precedent for a stay. All four conditions for a stay were satisfied, and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo over the suit land. The application was granted, subject to the applicant depositing a certificate of title as security in lieu of money.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution granted; respondent restrained from executing the High Court decree pending appeal, the applicant to deposit a certificate of title as security in lieu of a cash deposit

Facts

The applicant was the unsuccessful defendant in HCCS No. 051 of 2020. The High Court found that the respondent owns 25 acres of land comprised in Singo Block 491 Plot 11, and ordered the applicant within 30 days to hand over signed transfer forms, photographs and documents necessary for mutation and registration of the 25 acres into the respondent's name, to give vacant possession, and to pay shs.150,000,000 in general damages plus costs. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 152 of 2024), which is under conferencing. He sought a stay of execution in the High Court, which granted it on condition he deposit shs.100,000,000 (later within 30 days); his attempts to have the condition reviewed or vacated failed. The suit land remains registered in the names of the applicant and his co-registered proprietor, Mr. Bisamaaza George, who are both still in possession. The applicant then applied afresh to the Court of Appeal for an unconditional stay.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution was competently brought before the Court of Appeal under Rule 42 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. Whether the application was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, a similar application having been determined by the High Court.
  3. Whether the applicant's non-compliance with the High Court's orders amounted to contempt disentitling him to relief.
  4. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal.

Orders

  • An order issues against the respondent, his agents and servants staying the execution and implementation of the judgment, decree and all orders of the High Court in Civil Suit No. 051 of 2020, and restraining the respondent from evicting or dispossessing the applicant and his co-owner or taking possession of the suit property comprised in Singo Block 491 Plot 11, until final disposal of Civil Appeal No. 152 of 2024.
  • No transaction, transfer or third party interest shall be effected in respect of the suit land Singo Block 491 Plot 11 until determination of the pending appeal.
  • The applicant shall, within 30 days, deposit with the Registrar of the Court the certificate of title for land comprised in FRV 1027 Folio 13 Plot 42 Singo Block 489 at Kitumbi, Kasanda District, as security for due performance of the decree, pending determination of the appeal.
  • The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under Rule 42
The discretionary power to grant a stay of execution of a High Court decree pending appeal is derived from Rules 2(2), 6(2)(b) and 42 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules, and may be exercised by the Court presided over by a single Justice; in exercising it the Court is not bound by the decision or reasoning of the High Court.
Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Fresh stay application to the Court of Appeal
A fresh application for stay of execution to the Court of Appeal under Rule 42 is not barred by res judicata merely because the High Court has determined a similar application, because the Court of Appeal exercises an independent discretion under Rules 2(2) and 6(2)(b) on the peculiar facts before it.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Non-compliance pending appeal
An unsuccessful party's attempts to forestall execution against him while pursuing an appeal do not amount to contempt of court or abuse of process; contempt would arise only where a party refuses to comply with a decree without preferring an appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for due performance not a condition precedent
Security for due performance of a decree is not a condition precedent to the grant of a stay of execution; where a condition to deposit a large sum of money would have the effect of blocking an unsuccessful litigant from pursuing the right of appeal, the Court may invoke its inherent powers in the interest of justice to grant a stay without such a condition.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for the grant
The conditions for the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal are: a notice of appeal duly filed under Rule 76; an arguable appeal with a likelihood of success or a prima facie right of appeal; proof of irreparable loss or that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if no stay is granted; and that the application was instituted without delay.
Land & Property — Stay of Execution — Preserving status quo over land pending appeal
Where the subject matter of an appeal is land capable of being alienated to third parties and rendered irrecoverable, a stay preserving the status quo, including an order freezing any transactions or creation of third party interests in the suit land, is warranted to prevent the appeal being rendered nugatory.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (29)

  • The Registered Trustees of the Hindu Union v Kagoro Epimac & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 304 of 2017)
  • G.M Combined (U) Ltd v A.K Detergents (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1995)
  • Kelspo Ssekandi Luswanga v Administrator General (Civil Application No. 457 of 2022)
  • Parambot Breweries Limited versus Standard Chartered Bank Limited
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v NSSF (Civil Application No. 43 of 2023)
  • Hon Theodore Ssekikubo & Ors v Attorney General & Anor (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Haruna Sentongo v I & M Bank Ltd (Civil Application No. 113 of 2023)
  • Gashumba Muniraguha v Sam Nkundiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
  • Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui v Ketter & Ors [2013] eKLR
  • China Henan International Cooperation Group Co. Ltd v Justus Kyabahwa (Civil Application No. 100 of 2021)
  • Patrick Kaumba Wiltshire v Ismail Dabule (Civil Application No. 3 of 2019)
  • Kisembo Emmanuel & Ors v Tibezinda Moses (Civil Application No. 5 of 2023)
  • Legal Brains Trust (U) Ltd v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 638 of 2014)
  • Florence Dawaru v Angumale Albino & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 96 of 2016)
  • Formula Feeds Ltd & 3 Others v KCB Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Stanbic Bank Ltd & Jacobsen Power Plant Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Onzia Elizabeth v Shaban Fadul (Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2013)
  • Karia & Another v Attorney General & Others [2005] 1 EA 83
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd & Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Erinford Properties Ltd v Cheshire County Council [1974] 2 All ER 448
  • Margret Kato & Joel Kato v Nulu Nalwoga (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2011)
  • Haruna Ssentongo v Orient Bank Ltd (Civil Application No. 113 of 2023)
  • Jomayi Property Consultants Ltd v Maviiri (Civil Reference No. 174 of 2015) [2020] UGCA 2052
  • Alex Opua Emongas v Margaret Zawedde Kiryowa (Civil Application No. 694 of 2024)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Akankwasa Damian v Uganda (Constitutional Application No. 7 of 2011 and No. 9 of 2011)
  • National Housing and Construction Corporation v Kampala District Land Board & Anor (Civil Application No. 6 of 2002)
  • Kitutu Mary Goretti Kimono v Attorney General & 2 Others (Civil Application No. 109 of 2024)
  • Alice Wambui Nganga v John Ngure Kahomo & Another (ELC Case No. 482 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Gasasira v Bataringaya (Civil Application 68 of 2025) [2025] UGCA 94 (1 January 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.