Wakilii

Gatsinzi v Kisiki and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1493 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 222 · 2022 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of judgment and decree pending appeal, arising from Civil Suit No. 156 of 2014
Decision
Stay of execution granted conditional upon deposit of security within 30 days

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 granted the application for stay of execution of the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 156 of 2014 pending determination of the appeal, conditional upon the applicant depositing UGX 20,000,000 as security for performance of the decree within 30 days. The court found that the applicant had lodged a notice of appeal without unreasonable delay and that the self-executing nature of the trial court's orders posed an imminent threat of substantial loss. Security was ordered to demonstrate seriousness of the intended appeal and shield against frivolous appeals.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted conditional upon deposit of security within 30 days

Facts

The applicant Edward Kasinzi was dissatisfied with judgment delivered on 2 September 2022 in Civil Suit No. 156 of 2014, wherein the High Court Land Division ordered cancellation of the applicant's special certificate of title and issuance of separate titles in the names of the late Mitina Nakanwagi and administrators of the late Augustus Lwabulangwa, and issued a permanent injunction against the applicant. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 6 September 2022 and on 12 September 2022 filed this application for stay of execution. The applicant deponed that respondents had applied to have the special certificate cancelled and that if allowed, they would dispose of the suit land rendering the appeal nugatory. The application was initially dismissed due to technical errors in the ECCMIS system but was later reinstated after audit revealed the directives had not been reflected on the applicant's lawyer's portal.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a pending appeal.
  2. Whether substantial loss may result to the applicant if the order for stay is denied.
  3. Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay.
  4. Whether the applicant is willing to furnish security for due performance of the decree.

Orders

  • Application granted on condition that the applicant deposits UGX 20,000,000 as security for performance of the decree within 30 days from the date of this order.
  • Each party to meet their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
An applicant seeking stay of execution must satisfy the conditions set out in Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules: that a notice of appeal has been lodged; that substantial loss may result unless stay is granted; that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and that security for due performance of the decree has been given.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
Substantial loss does not mean ordinary loss or the decretal sum or costs, but something more. Where the subject matter is property capable of permanent alienation and therefore capable of causing the appeal to be nugatory, the court will exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant so as to give benefit to the appeal to be attended to on its merits.
Stay of Execution — Unreasonable Delay
It is fair that an intended appellant who has filed a notice of appeal should be able to apply for a stay of execution as soon as possible and not have to wait until the appeal is lodged. Owing to long delays in obtaining proceedings of the High Court, it may be many months before an appeal can be lodged, and in the meantime execution of the decision could cause irreparable loss.
Stay of Execution — Security for Costs
Payment of security for costs is intended to operate as a shield against the filing of frivolous and vexatious appeals which may never succeed yet escalate trial costs. It is intended to show seriousness of the intended appellant in pursuing the appeal and is a mandatory requirement under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (6)

  • Musiitwa v Busingye (Civil Application No. 78 of 1990)
  • Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Kistawuzi v Mallingu (HCMA No. 467 of 2013)
  • Sengendo v Busuluta Lawrence and Another (CACA No. 202 of 2014)
  • Ujagar Singh v Runda Coffee Estates Ltd [1966] EA 253
  • Sekikannabo Dickson v Ziwa Abby (HCMA No. 174 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Gatsinzi_v_Kisiki_and_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._1493_of_2022)_[2022]_UGHCLD_222_(23_November_2022)
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.