Jjuuko & 2 Others v Kironde & 12 Others (Civil Application 1096 of 2023)
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
On an application for an interim order of stay of execution pending the substantive stay application, the court reaffirmed that such an order requires a pending substantive application, a duly filed notice of appeal, and an imminent threat of execution. Although a notice of appeal and a pending substantive application (MA 295 of 2021) existed, the affidavit in reply showed that execution had already ensued and the suit property had been alienated. The court held it would be moot to issue an interim order to preserve a status quo that had already changed, as courts do not issue orders in vain. The application was dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.
Outcome
Application for an interim order of stay of execution dismissed as moot; each party to bear own costs
Facts
Judgment in Civil Suit No. 55 of 2018 was delivered on 15 December 2018 in favour of the respondents over land comprised in Kyadondo Block 85 Plot 1777. The applicants lodged Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2021 and sought a stay of execution before the trial court (MA 31 of 2021), which was dismissed. They then filed MA 295 of 2021 before the Court of Appeal seeking a stay of execution and preservation of the status quo pending the appeal. The decree was extracted in 2020 and a notice to show cause why execution should not issue (EMA 22 of 2021) was filed in May 2021 and allowed in May 2022 when the applicants failed to attend court. The applicants filed the present interim application in October 2023. The respondents' affidavit in reply stated that execution had since ensued and the suit property had been alienated, an averment the applicants did not rebut.
Issues
- Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for the grant of an interim order of stay of execution pending the hearing of the substantive stay application.
- Whether an interim order could issue where execution had already occurred and the suit property had been alienated.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
- Judicature Act s.11
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.6(2)(b)
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.43
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.2(2)
- Constitution Article 126(2)(a)
- Constitution Article 126(2)(b)
Cases cited (7)
- Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
- Kyambogo University v Professor Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 34 of 2013)
- National Forestry Authority v The Omukama of Bunyoro Kitara and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 255 of 2019)
- Theodore Ssekikubo and 2 Others v Attorney General and 4 Others (Constitutional Application No. 4 of 2014)
- Uganda Revenue Authority v Nsubuga Guster and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2018)
- Patrick Kaumba Wiltshire v Ismail Dabule (Civil Application No. 3 of 2018)
- Gladys Mukula v Rosemary Nabukenya (Miscellaneous Application No. 211 of 2020)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.