Wakilii

Kaaya Musa and Others v Ojambo Sunday Steven (Miscellaneous Application 333 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 421 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of contempt orders pending appeal from Deputy Registrar's decision
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 court dismissed the application for stay of execution. The affidavit in support was struck out as defective because the third applicant swore it on behalf of the first and second applicants without written authority as required by Order 1 rule 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court held that an appeal from a Deputy Registrar's order under Order 50 rule 8 does not require leave to appeal. However, the applicants failed to demonstrate a valid appeal, likelihood of success, substantial loss, or willingness to provide security for due performance as required under Order 43 rule 4(3).

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The respondent sued the applicants for declarations of kibanja ownership on Block 16 plot 22. The respondent obtained a temporary injunction restraining the applicants from interfering with his occupation. The respondent then filed a contempt application accusing the applicants of violating the injunction. The Deputy Registrar of the High Court Land Division condemned the applicants to a fine of UGX 10,000,000 and general damages of UGX 5,000,000 for contempt. The applicants filed an appeal against the Deputy Registrar's orders. The respondent commenced execution by filing a Bill of Costs. The applicants then filed this application seeking stay of execution pending determination of their appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants have sufficient grounds for grant of an order of stay of execution
  2. Whether the affidavit in support of the application is fatally defective for being sworn on behalf of other applicants without written authority
  3. Whether the appeal is fatally defective for failure to seek leave to appeal
  4. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • The affidavit in support of the application is struck out for being defective.
  • The first preliminary objection is upheld.
  • The second preliminary objection is overruled.
  • The application for stay of execution is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Defective Affidavits — Swearing on Behalf of Others Without Written Authority
An affidavit sworn by one party on behalf of other parties without written authority from those parties is incurably defective and cannot support an application. Order 1 rule 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules mandates that authority to act on behalf of another party must be in writing, signed by the party giving it, and filed in the case.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Appeals from Registrar's Orders — Requirement for Leave to Appeal
An appeal against an order of a Deputy Registrar under Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not require leave to appeal. The appeal is by motion on notice and any person aggrieved by an order of a Registrar may appeal from the order to the High Court without first seeking leave.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Valid Appeal as Prerequisite
A valid appeal properly filed in accordance with the applicable procedural rules is a prerequisite for an application for stay of execution pending appeal. Where an applicant has not demonstrated that a proper appeal has been filed, the court cannot grant a stay of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Substantial Loss and Security
To obtain a stay of execution, an applicant must demonstrate that substantial loss will result unless the stay is granted, that such loss cannot be adequately atoned by an award of damages, and must express willingness to provide security for due performance of the decree or order. Vague and general assertions of substantial loss are insufficient.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (18)

  • Makerere University v St Mark Education Institute and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 378 of 1993)
  • Mujib Juma Kenyi v Swaib Juma Kenyi (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 10 of 2024)
  • Lukwago Erias v Attorney General and Another [2014] UGSC 405
  • Aupal Kokas Wilfred v Aisu Popuras (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 52 of 2022)
  • Lega Nakalema Binaisa and 3 Others v Mucunguzi Myers (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 460 of 2013)
  • Taremwa Kamishana Tomas Vs Attorney General
  • Vincent Kafeero and 11 Others v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 48 of 2012)
  • Mukye and 106 Others v Madhvani Group Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 821 of 2013)
  • Mujib Juma Kenyi v Swaib Juma Kenyi and 3 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 189 of 2024)
  • Hawa Ilyende and Another v Kafeero Jamada and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 155 of 2023)
  • Attorney General v Shah [1971] EA 50
  • Baku Raphael Obudra and Obiga Kania v Attorney General (Supreme Court Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 2005)
  • Theodore Ssekikuubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990) [1992] IV KALR 55
  • Gapco Uganda Ltd v Kaweesa and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 259 of 2013)
  • Pan African Insurance Co. Ltd v International Air Transport Association (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2000)
  • Abid v Windriver Logistics Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 219 of 2021)
  • Kawanga v Namyalo Kevina and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kaaya Musa and Others v Ojambo Sunday Steven (Miscellaneous Application 333 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 421 (18 June 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.