Wakilii

Gertrude Zawedde v Bernard Butyoko Lubwama Walusimbi and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2914 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 168 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal and stay of execution arising from dismissal of review application
Decision
Application dismissed with no orders as to costs

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 leave to appeal and stay of execution arising from a dismissed review application. The court held that the grounds of appeal raised by the applicant related to the substantive main suit rather than the review ruling, and that leave to appeal should have been sought from the main suit judgment. The applicant failed to establish grounds warranting stay of execution, including any imminent threat of execution.

Outcome

Application dismissed with no orders as to costs

Facts

The applicant instituted Civil Suit No. 2672 of 2016 concerning land comprised in Block 214 Plot 3736 and administration of estates of the late Peter Namunene Walusimbi and the late Veronica Namusisi. Judgment was delivered on 5 November 2017 determining that the late Veronica Namusisi had a beneficial interest in her late husband's estate and that the applicant had an interest in the suit land pursuant to Veronica Namusisi's will. The applicant subsequently filed Miscellaneous Application No. 2214 of 2024 seeking review of the judgment, arguing that the trial court had not provided a mechanism for subdivision of the land. The review application was dismissed on 3 October 2024. The applicant then filed this application on 31 October 2024 seeking leave to appeal the dismissal of the review and stay of execution of the main suit judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant fulfils the requirement for leave to appeal?
  2. Whether the Applicant fulfills the legal requirements for stay of execution?

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is not granted.
  • Application for stay of execution dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Grounds of Appeal Must Relate to Order Being Appealed
Where an applicant seeks leave to appeal from a ruling dismissing a review application, the grounds of appeal must relate to the review ruling itself and not to the substantive judgment that was the subject of the review. An applicant who raises grounds relating to the main suit should have applied for leave to appeal from the main suit judgment, not from the dismissal of the review application.
Civil Procedure — Omnibus Applications — When Permissible
An omnibus application combining multiple reliefs is permissible where the applications are of the same nature, have the effect of mitigating multiplicity of suits, one is a consequence of the other, and no injustice would be occasioned by handling both applications together. Omnibus applications are ideal when multiple applications arise out of the same suit by the same plaintiff against the same defendant and the issues are so closely related that a decision on one will necessitate another.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements
An applicant seeking stay of execution must establish that a notice of appeal has been lodged, that the appeal has a likelihood of success or a prima facie case, that the applicant will suffer irreparable damage or the appeal will be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted, and that the application was instituted without delay. The applicant must adduce evidence of an imminent threat of execution; being administrators of an estate is not sufficient ground to show imminent danger of execution.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Standard Where Order Made in Exercise of Discretion
Where the order from which leave to appeal is sought was made in the exercise of judicial discretion, a rather stronger case must be made out than in cases where leave is sought from non-discretionary orders. An applicant must show either that the intended appeal has a reasonable chance of success or that there are arguable grounds of appeal and the applicant has not been guilty of dilatory conduct.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (12)

  • Alcon International v Kasirye Byaruhanga (1995) III KALR
  • Kapiriri v International Investments Ltd and 5 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 160 of 2014)
  • Okello & 3 Others v Lacen (Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2017)
  • Sobetra v Leeds Insurance Co (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 377 of 2013)
  • African Clearing and Forwarding Co Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 0003 of 2012)
  • Deepa Trading Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 16 of 1996)
  • Abdul Jafar Devji v Ali RMS Devji (1958) EA 559
  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd and Others v Dresdner Bank AG [1971] 1 EA 17
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Gashumba v Nkundane (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
  • Hon Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v The Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tadiyadin Hussein & Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Gertrude_Zawedde_v_Bernard_Butyoko_Lubwama_Walusimbi_and_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._2914_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_168_(24_July_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.