Wakilii

Hanifa and Another (s a Administratrix of Estate of the Late Egesha) v Shambe (Miscellaneous Application 1123 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 360 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of decree pending appeal to Court of Appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed

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

Application for stay of execution dismissed as premature. Court held that mere extraction of a decree without more does not constitute proof of imminent threat of execution. Applicant failed to demonstrate that respondent had taken any steps toward execution under O.22 of the Civil Procedure Rules, including no application for execution filed and no bill of costs for taxation. Requirements for stay of execution not satisfied where there is no pending execution application or evidence of threatened implementation.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

Judgment was delivered in HCCS No. 601 of 2014 on 9 May 2023 ordering the applicant to hand over vacant possession of residential property on Kibuga Block 12 Plot 488 Mengo Kisenyi to the respondent, pay general damages of UGX 50 million for breach of contract, interest at court rate, and costs. The applicant filed a notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal to the Court of Appeal. The respondent extracted the decree on the same day as judgment. The applicant then filed this application seeking stay of execution pending appeal, alleging imminent threat of execution based on the respondent having extracted the decree. The respondent had not filed any application for execution, had not filed a bill of costs for taxation, and had taken no steps to implement the court's orders.

Issues

  1. Whether the application meets the requirements for grant of stay of execution.
  2. What are the remedies available?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Requirements for Grant
Before granting stay of execution, an applicant must demonstrate: (1) a pending appeal; (2) that substantial loss may result unless the order is made; (3) the application has been made without unreasonable delay; (4) security has been given for due performance of the decree; and (5) there is a serious threat of execution such that if the application is not granted the appeal would be rendered nugatory.
Stay of Execution — Extraction of Decree Not Evidence of Imminent Execution
Merely extracting a decree without more is not in itself proof that there are threats to execute; extraction of a decree by a successful party in accordance with O.21 r.7 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not constitute a step toward execution.
Stay of Execution — Application Premature Where No Execution Proceedings Commenced
An application for stay of execution is premature where the decree holder has not filed any application to execute the decree under O.22 rr.7 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, has not filed a bill of costs for taxation, and has taken no steps to implement the court's orders.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.21 r.7
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.7
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.8

Cases cited (2)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hanifa_and_Another_(s_a_Administratrix_of_Estate_of_the_Late_Egesha)_v_Shambe_(Miscellaneous_Application_1123_of_2023)_[2023]_UGHCLD_360_(2_November_2023)
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.