Wakilii

Kabarema v Natukunda (Miscellaneous Application 264 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHC 128 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of High Court decree pending appeal to Court of Appeal
Decision
Stay of execution granted pending appeal

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 granted a stay of execution of a decree pending appeal to the Court of Appeal. The applicant satisfied three of the four statutory considerations: substantial loss would result if execution proceeded, the application was made without unreasonable delay, and the applicant offered security for due performance of the decree. The court severed false paragraphs from the applicant's affidavit alleging commencement of execution proceedings, finding no evidence of such proceedings on the record. The court declined to order security for costs, exercising its discretion in favour of access to justice.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted pending appeal

Facts

The applicant, Kabarema Adonia, applied for a stay of execution of a High Court decree in HCT-05-CV-CA-0043-2016 delivered on 16 August 2021. The applicant had filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal. The applicant deposed that he lived on part of the suit land and derived his livelihood from crops thereon, and that execution would cause substantial loss and disrupt his family. The applicant alleged that the respondent had taken steps to execute the decree, but the court found no evidence of execution proceedings on the record and severed those paragraphs from the affidavit as false. The respondent filed no reply to the application. The applicant's counsel was directed to file submissions but failed to do so.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has adduced sufficient reasons to justify the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution granted.
  • Execution of the decree in HCT-05-CV-CA-0043-2016 stayed pending disposal of the appeal in the Court of Appeal.
  • No order for payment of security for due performance of the decree.
  • Costs of this application to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Considerations for Grant
For a stay of execution pending appeal to be granted, the applicant must satisfy the court that: (i) substantial loss may result unless the order is made; (ii) the application has been made without unreasonable delay; (iii) the appeal has a likelihood of success; and (iv) security has been given for due performance of the decree.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Purpose and Duty of Court
It is the paramount duty of a court to which an application for stay of execution pending appeal is made to see that the appeal, if successful, is not rendered nugatory.
Evidence — Affidavits — Treatment of False Averments
Where a court finds paragraphs in an affidavit that it believes are falsehoods, the proper course is to sever those paragraphs and rely on the remaining paragraphs in the affidavit.
Civil Procedure — Substantial Loss — Definition and Application
Substantial loss does not represent any particular amount or size and cannot be quantified by any particular mathematical formula. It refers to any loss, great or small, that is of real worth or value as distinguished from loss without value or that which is merely nominal.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Exercise of Discretion
The power to order security for costs is an exercise of judicial discretion which must be exercised judiciously and used sparingly. The purpose is to protect defendants from frivolous litigation, but courts must ensure that parties with just claims are not prevented from accessing justice. Mere poverty of a party is not by itself a ground for ordering security for costs.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (18)

  • Livingstone Nsumba Membe v Fibiano Mayoga [2009] 1 HCB 82
  • Francis M. Micah v Nuwa Walakira (1992-93) HCB 88
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd and Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (2004) 2 EA 331
  • Kagewa v Kawalya-Kaggwa (Administration Cause No. 21 of 1972)
  • Kyazze v Busingye [1990] LLR 190
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 06 of 2013)
  • Gashumba v Nkudiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015) [2015] UGSC 7
  • Dr. Ahmed Mohhamad Kisule v Greenland Bank (In Liquidation) (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2010)
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Lusejjere (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 29 of 2003)
  • Wilson v Church [1879] 12 Ch D 454
  • Baryaija v Kikwisire and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 324 of 2017)
  • GM Combined (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1995)
  • Noble Builders (U) Ltd and Another v Sadhu [2004] EA 228
  • Goodman Agencies (Supreme Court Civil Reference No. 01 of 2011)
  • Kakooza Jonathan and Another v Kasaala Cooperative Society Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 13 of 2011)
  • UCB v Multi Constructors Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1994)
  • Paul Nyamarere and 3 Others v Dison Okumu and 6 Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 35 of 2020)
  • Namboro v Kaala [1975] HCB 315

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kabarema v Natukunda (Miscellaneous Application 264 of 2021) [2022] UGHC 128 (15 December 2022)
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.