Wakilii

Iriso v Okurut (Miscellaneous Application 45 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 787 · 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 pending determination of application for leave to appeal out of time
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

The High Court dismissed the application for stay of execution. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success as there was no pending appeal but only an application for leave to appeal out of time. The applicant did not prove substantial loss, having himself initially agreed to pay the taxed costs voluntarily. The application was brought with inordinate delay and as an afterthought when faced with execution proceedings. The applicant did not satisfy the statutory conditions under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The applicant had been unsuccessful in Civil Appeal No. 003 of 2022 decided by the Chief Magistrate's Court of Kumi on 31 May 2022, which dismissed his appeal and awarded costs to the respondent. The respondent taxed a bill of costs at UGX 3,680,000 and filed for execution. The applicant was served with a notice to show cause why a warrant of arrest should not issue. The applicant filed an application for leave to appeal out of time in February 2023 and simultaneously sought stay of execution of the judgment and decree. The applicant had been present when the ruling was delivered in May 2022. When the matter came up for hearing of the notice to show cause on 27 March 2023, the applicant initially undertook to pay the taxed costs within one and a half months but then filed the present application for stay of execution instead.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for grant of a stay of execution under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the applicant demonstrated a likelihood of success in his intended appeal.
  3. Whether the applicant would suffer substantial loss if execution was not stayed.
  4. Whether the application was brought with unreasonable delay.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
An applicant for stay of execution must demonstrate that there is a pending appeal with a likelihood of success, a serious and imminent threat of execution that would render the appeal nugatory, no unreasonable delay in filing the application, and willingness to furnish security for due performance of the decree.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
Substantial loss for purposes of stay of execution refers to any loss of real worth or value as distinguished from a loss that is merely nominal, and arises where there is imminent threat of execution which would change the status quo such that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if execution is not stayed.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Monetary Obligations — No Substantial Loss
Where execution relates to payment of taxed costs which the applicant himself had voluntarily undertaken to pay, and the applicant later filed for stay of execution to avoid that payment, the applicant does not suffer substantial loss warranting stay of execution as the loss is purely monetary and does not render any appeal nugatory.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Application for Leave to Appeal — No Pending Appeal
An application for stay of execution cannot succeed where there is no pending appeal but only an application for leave to appeal out of time, as the existence of a pending appeal is a foundational condition for grant of stay of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Inordinate Delay
An application for stay of execution brought approximately ten months after judgment was delivered, and only as an afterthought when faced with execution proceedings, constitutes inordinate delay disentitling the applicant to the discretionary remedy of stay.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (SC 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 787 (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.