Wakilii

Julius Kamya and Others v Haji Ahmed Lugoloobi Gitta (Miscellaneous Application No. 577 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 609 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of High Court judgment pending appeal to Court of Appeal
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

The High Court dismissed an application for stay of execution pending appeal, holding that the applicants failed to satisfy the essential requirements. The application was filed nearly a year after the Court of Appeal dismissed a similar application on procedural grounds, constituting unreasonable delay. The appeal raised grounds of mixed law and fact unsustainable on second appeal. No imminent threat of execution was demonstrated. The land had no proven unique sentimental value beyond ordinary attachment to a home, and monetary damages could compensate any loss.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The respondent obtained judgment in 2015 declaring him proprietor of land comprised in Kyaggwe Block 110 Plots 989 and 990, restricting the applicants' occupancy to half an acre on Plot 989, awarding general damages of UGX 30,000,000, and issuing a permanent injunction. The applicants' appeal to the High Court was dismissed in August 2023. The applicants filed an application for stay of execution directly to the Court of Appeal, which was dismissed on 29 January 2024 for procedural irregularity. The applicants then filed this application in the High Court on 2 December 2024, seeking to stay execution pending their appeal to the Court of Appeal. They claimed they had lived on the land since the 1970s and would suffer irreparable damage if evicted.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution was filed without unreasonable delay.
  2. Whether the appeal to the Court of Appeal has a likelihood of success.
  3. Whether execution of the decree would render the appeal nugatory.
  4. Whether there is a serious or imminent threat of execution of the decree.
  5. Whether substantial loss would result to the applicants unless stay of execution is granted.
  6. Whether the applicants have given security for due performance of the decree.
  7. Whether refusal to grant the stay would inflict more hardship than it would avoid.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Unreasonable Delay
Filing an application for stay of execution in the wrong court may be excusable as a procedural error, but subsequent delay in refiling with the correct court can still be deemed unreasonable if not properly explained and justified.
Civil Procedure — Second Appeals — Scope of Grounds
On a second appeal under section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, grounds challenging whether specific facts fit within a legal framework are questions of mixed law and fact, which are unsustainable on second appeal. Second appeals are restricted to points of law only.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Rendering Appeal Nugatory
When determining whether execution will render a pending appeal nugatory, the court considers the impact of the directly executable part of the decree on the merits of the appeal. An appeal will be rendered nugatory if what is sought to be stayed is irreversible, or if reversible, damages will not reasonably compensate the party aggrieved.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Monetary Awards
With regard to monetary awards, their satisfaction does not ordinarily pose the danger of rendering a pending appeal nugatory where the respondent is not impecunious, as the remedy of restitution is available to the applicant in the event the appeal is allowed.
Land & Property — Stay of Execution — Sentimental Value
A court will not stay execution of a decree involving land with no specific sentimental value, as satisfaction of the decree typically does not cause substantial loss or irreparable injury to the applicant. The uniqueness of the possession and the applicant's emotional connection must be of a kind that is irreplaceable if lost, with qualities akin to heritage and symbolic of identity, beyond merely being an object of possession representing economic interests and the reassurance associated with owning a home.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Imminent Threat
An order of stay will issue only if there is actual or presently threatened execution. There must be unequivocal evidence showing that unconditional steps conveying gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution have been taken by the respondent, such as extracting the decree, having a bill of costs taxed, applying for a warrant of execution, or issuing a notice to show cause.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Decree
Courts have been reluctant to order security for due performance of the decree as an absolute requirement for stay of execution, as such a requirement is likely to stifle appeals. Courts instead prefer to order security for costs to protect the respondent for costs incurred in defending the appeal.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (16)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businge (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Okonga Rashid v Byenkya Amos (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 977 of 2023)
  • Kamya Julius and Four Others v Haji Ahmed Lugolobi Gitta (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 1013 of 2023)
  • R v Hassan bin Said (1942) 9 EACA 62
  • Bushenyi-Ishaka Town Council v Manfred Muhumuza and Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 231 of 2013)
  • Kakooza Godfrey v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2008)
  • Simon Tendo Kabenge v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2015)
  • Lubanga Jamada v Dr. Ddumba Edward (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2011)
  • Mitwalo Magyengo v Medadi Mutyaba (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1996)
  • Robert Coussens v. Attorney General [1998-2000] HCB 26
  • Byabalema Matiya and Two Others v Uganda Transport Company (1975) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1993)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and Others v. International Credit Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Alice Wambui Nganga v. John Ngure Kahoro and another, ELC Case No. 482 of 2017 (at Thika); [2021] eKLR
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Dr. Ann Persis Nakate Lussejere (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2003)
  • Erinford Propertied Ltd. v. Cheshire County Council [1974] 412 All ER 448

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Julius Kamya and Others v Haji Ahmed Lugoloobi Gitta (Miscellaneous Application No. 577 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 609 (1 July 2025)
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.