Wakilii

Kabuga Ranchers v Kamwenge Ditsrict Local Government (HCT-01-LD-MA 103 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 129 · 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 respondents

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

Court dismissed application for stay of execution pending appeal. While applicant proved lodgment of appeal to Court of Appeal, they failed to demonstrate three essential requirements: (a) a serious threat of execution of the decree, (b) that irreparable injury would result without the stay, and (c) that refusal would inflict greater hardship than it would avoid. Respondents' boundary opening exercise did not constitute execution proceedings requiring formal steps such as extraction of decree or notice to show cause.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to respondents

Facts

Applicant filed motion seeking stay of execution of judgment in Civil Suit No. 22 of 2021 pending appeal. The underlying suit concerned land comprised in Plots 11 and 12 Block 49 at Kabuga, Kahunge, Kamwenge District, which the High Court declared public land held in trust by 1st Respondent and issued permanent injunction restraining Applicant from using the land without consent. Applicant filed Notice of Appeal on 8 May 2024 and instituted Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 652 of 2024 on 31 July 2024. After judgment, Respondents sought guidance from Solicitor General and requested police security to conduct boundary opening exercise. Applicant claimed to use the land for cattle ranching with developments including residential homes and cattle farms. Respondents disputed existence of permanent structures, acknowledging only cattle sheds and makeshift fences.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause warranting grant of an order of stay of execution of the orders of this court in Civil Suit No. 22 of 2021.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties in the circumstances?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Proof of Lodgment of Appeal
To satisfy the requirement of proof of lodgment of appeal for purposes of stay of execution, an applicant must provide evidence of both the Notice of Appeal lodged within 14 days under Rule 76(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeals) Rules and the Memorandum of Appeal filed within 60 days under Rule 83(1) of the same Rules.
Stay of Execution — Serious Threat of Execution
A serious threat of execution cannot be granted based on mere speculation. The threat must be a direct peril, immediate and impending, not merely remote, uncertain, or contingent. Unequivocal evidence showing specific verifiable steps have been taken by the respondent is required, including extracting the decree, presenting and having a bill of costs taxed, applying for issuance of a warrant of execution, and issuing a notice to show cause why execution should not issue.
Stay of Execution — Boundary Opening Not Execution
A boundary opening exercise undertaken by a successful party in a land suit does not constitute execution proceedings requiring a stay of execution, where the exercise serves merely to clarify boundaries and there is no demonstration that it would affect the applicant's continued use of the suit land or constitute a threat of eviction.
Stay of Execution — Irreparable Injury
Irreparable injury means injury or damage that is substantial or material, that cannot be adequately atoned for by way of damages. An applicant for stay of execution must demonstrate that the threatened action would cause such injury, not merely assert a general fear of harm.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (14)

  • MusiitwaKyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Dr. Ahmed Muhammed Kisule v Greenland Bank (in Liquidation) (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 7 of 2010)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v The Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 06 of 2013)
  • Uganda v Ntambi Vincent (Criminal Application No. 08 of 2019)
  • Junaco (T) Ltd and 2 Others v DFCU Bank Ltd (HCMA No. 0027 of 2023)
  • Paul Barozi and Another v Christopher Nicodemus Winyi (HCMA No. 027 of 2023)
  • Formula Feeds Limited and Others v KCB Bank (HCMA No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Beeline Travel Care Limited and Another v Finance Trust Bank (HCMA No. 296 of 2023)
  • Donati Kananura v Tribet Rujugiro (HCMA No. 1782 of 2022)
  • Uganda Debt Network v Edward Ronald Sekyewa (HCMA No. 1657 of 2023)
  • City Council of Kampala v Donozio Musisi Sekyaya (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
  • Proline Soccer Academy v Commissioner Land Registration (HCMA No. 494 of 2018)
  • Shiv Construction Co. Ltd v Endesha Enterprises Limited (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 34 of 1992)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kabuga Ranchers v Kamwenge Ditsrict Local Government (HCT-01-LD-MA 103 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 129 (28 February 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.