Hamir v Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (Civil Application 1092 of 2023)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

On an application for a stay of execution pending appeal, the single Justice held that the applicant had satisfied the established conditions: the lodged appeal raised serious questions amounting to a prima facie appeal; there was a serious and imminent threat of execution evidenced by a taxed bill of costs, a notice to show cause and a warrant of arrest; the balance of convenience favoured the applicant, who resided and carried on business on the suit land; and the application had been brought without undue delay. The Court accordingly exercised its discretion under rule 6(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules and granted a stay until the appeal is determined, with costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted until determination of the pending appeal

Facts

The respondent, through its agent, invited the public to take up space on its land in Soroti and build lock-ups to generate income for the mosque, on conditions including that allottees would not assign or sublet without the respondent's approval. The applicant, a non-Muslim, was not an original allottee but acquired two lock-ups and assumed the rights of the first allottees, occupying and developing them without the respondent's approval. He was charged higher rent than his Muslim co-tenants, which he considered discriminatory, and stopped paying. The respondent terminated the lease and demanded vacant possession. The applicant and three others unsuccessfully sued for breach of contract in Civil Suit No. 10 of 2018, while the respondent succeeded on a counterclaim for trespass. The applicant appealed and sought a stay of execution in the High Court, which was dismissed, prompting this application. There was a taxed bill of costs, a notice to show cause and a warrant of arrest against the applicant.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant adduced sufficient reasons to justify the grant of a stay of execution pending the determination of his appeal.

Orders

• An order of stay of execution is granted until the appeal is determined.
• Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.43(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.44(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.76

Cases cited (4)

• Lawrence Erin Properties Ltd v Cheshire County Council [1997] 2 All ER 446
• Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkundiye (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2015)
• Kyambogo University v Prof Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
• Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 5 of 2013)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Uganda Law Society and Another v Mugisha Hashim Mugisha and Others (Civil Application 99 of 2025)

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