Henry Kibirango and Others v Lule Emma and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 201 of 2025)
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 stay of execution pending appeal on the ground that the notice of appeal was filed out of time. The judgment in the underlying suit was delivered on 2 October 2024, but the notice of appeal was filed on 22 October 2024, eight days beyond the 14-day period prescribed by Rule 76(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules). The court held that an incompetent notice of appeal cannot form the basis for granting stay of execution under Order 22 Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as there is no pending suit to justify the order.
Outcome
Application for stay of execution dismissed for want of a competent notice of appeal
Facts
The applicants were defendants in Civil Suit No. 382 of 2011, in which judgment was delivered on 2 October 2024 in favour of the respondents. The respondents were declared lawful owners of land comprised in Block 25 Plot 162, and a permanent injunction was granted restraining the applicants from interfering with the respondents' use and enjoyment of the suit land. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the applicants filed a notice of appeal on 22 October 2024 and subsequently brought this application for stay of execution pending appeal. The applicants alleged that the respondents had been inspecting the suit land with potential buyers and that there was a serious threat of execution. The respondents opposed the application, contending that the notice of appeal was filed out of time and that the application was incompetent.
Issues
- Whether the application for stay of execution was competently filed before the court.
- Whether the notice of appeal was filed within the time prescribed by law.
- Whether there is a pending suit to justify the grant of an order of stay of execution.
Orders
- Preliminary objection upheld.
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the Respondents.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (12)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I-71 Order 22 Rule 26
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I-71 Order 22 Rule 89(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I-71 Order 43 Rule 1
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I-71 Order 43 Rule 2
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I-71 Order 43 Rule 3
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I-71 Order 43 Rule 4(2)
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 Rule 76
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 Rule 76(2)
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 Rule 83
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 Rule 83(1)
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 Rule 95
Cases cited (3)
- Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
- Attorney General of Uganda v The East African Law Society and Another (EACJ Application No. 1 of 2013)
- Yoramu Kasinde and Another v Kihonde Samuel and Another (CACA No. 259 of 2028)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.