Wakilii

Iriso v Okurut (Miscellaneous Application 45 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 784 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of judgment and decree in Civil Appeal No. 003 of 2022, arising from the Chief Magistrates Court of Kumi
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

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

Held that the application for stay of execution failed because the applicant had not lodged a pending appeal but only an application for leave to appeal out of time which lacked a likelihood of success. The applicant did not demonstrate substantial loss, as he had voluntarily agreed to pay the costs then filed this application as an afterthought to delay payment. The application was filed with inordinate delay, nearly ten months after the impugned judgment. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant was the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 003 of 2022 before the Chief Magistrates Court of Kumi. Judgment was delivered on 31 May 2022 dismissing the appeal with costs. The respondent's costs were taxed at UGX 3,680,000. The respondent filed an application for execution and served a notice to show cause why a warrant of arrest should not issue. In February 2023, the applicant undertook to pay the costs within one and a half months but failed to do so. Instead, he filed this application for stay of execution on 27 March 2023, citing an intention to appeal out of time. The applicant contended he was not informed of the judgment until February 2023, though court records showed he was present when the ruling was delivered.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for a stay of execution under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the applicant would suffer substantial loss if execution of the decree and costs order in Civil Appeal No. 003 of 2022 proceeded.
  3. Whether the applicant's intended appeal had a likelihood of success.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
For a stay of execution to be granted, the applicant must establish: (a) a pending appeal with a likelihood of success, (b) imminent threat of execution that would render the appeal nugatory, (c) absence of unreasonable delay, (d) willingness to furnish security for due performance of the decree, and (e) that refusal would inflict greater hardship than it would avoid.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Application for Leave to Appeal Distinguished from Pending Appeal
An application for leave to appeal out of time does not constitute a pending appeal for purposes of satisfying the conditions for a stay of execution under Order 43 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
Substantial loss does not represent any particular amount or mathematical formula; it refers to any loss of real worth or value as distinguished from a merely nominal loss. Substantial loss giving rise to stay of execution arises only where there is imminent threat of execution that would change the status quo such that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if execution is not stayed.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Inordinate Delay — Application Filed as Afterthought
Where an applicant was present when judgment was delivered, was aware of the orders, voluntarily undertook to pay the costs, but then filed an application for stay of execution nearly ten months after judgment solely to avoid payment he had agreed to make, such conduct constitutes inordinate delay and the application will be dismissed as having been brought as an afterthought.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd & 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Iriso v Okurut (Miscellaneous Application 45 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 784 (16 July 2024)
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.