Hajati Mariamu Nabukeera v Alamanzane Jjuko (Civil Suit No. 287 of 1991)
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 ex parte application for interim stay of execution. The court held that applications for stay of execution should first be made to the trial judge, not as interim orders pending a main application. The applicant failed to satisfy the mandatory requirement of providing security for due performance of the decree under Order 39 Rule 4(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules, making the application incompetent.
Outcome
Application for interim stay of execution dismissed for non-compliance with procedural requirements
Facts
The plaintiff, a widow of Sendi Baleki, brought an action against the defendant for revocation of letters of administration. Kireju J. found for the plaintiff and validated the deceased's will dated 16.8.1976, ordering that the estate be administered according to the will and revoking the letters of administration granted to the defendant. The defendant filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court and applied for stay of execution. The defendant then brought this ex parte application for an interim order staying execution pending determination of the main stay application, alleging that the judgment creditor had started erecting buildings on disputed plots and collecting rents from tenants.
Issues
- Whether an interim order for stay of execution should be granted pending hearing of the main application for stay of execution.
- Whether the applicant complied with the requirements under Order 39 Rule 4(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules for granting a stay of execution.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 39 Rule 4
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 39 Rule 5
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 39 Rule 4(3)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 39 Rule 4(5)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 39 Rule 1
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 48 Rule 1
- Court Vacation Rules Rule 4
- Civil Procedure Act s.101
- Succession Act s.27
- Court of Appeal Rules Rule 5(2)(8)
Cases cited (6)
- Lawrence Musitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
- Joanta Kaggwa vs. Olive Amalia Kawal-a (Administration Cause ho. 21 of 197^ ULR 129
- Ujagar Singh v Runda Coffee Estates Ltd [1966] EA 265
- Hugenyi and Co._ Advocated vs. ^ajional Corporation GA. Civil Appeal ho. 15 of 1984
- Katiqnal Pharmacy Ltd, vs, ivampala City Council reported 1979 HCB P 1.32
- Francis Marcia Nicer vs. nuwa Walakira jys< SCU Civil Application r,o. 9/90
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.