Wakilii

Kaddu v Kaddu (Miscellaneous Application 1450 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCFD 32 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal, arising from execution proceedings following a divorce judgment
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 2 times 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 court dismissed an application for stay of execution on the ground that it was both res judicata on the ownership issue and overtaken by events. The application was filed to stay execution proceedings (EMA No. 0024 of 2023) before the ruling in those proceedings was delivered. The court found no valid appeal existed against the underlying divorce decree, and the execution order sought recovery of taxed costs to which the applicant's counsel had consented.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

Following a divorce judgment delivered on 23 August 2022 in Divorce Cause No. 0002 of 2018, the court ordered that property comprised in Kyadondo Block 246 Plot 1635 be registered in the names of both John Kaddu Bwabye and Teddy Kyeyune Kaddu as tenants in common. The decree was executed and the property registered accordingly. The applicant subsequently filed multiple unsuccessful applications seeking to set aside the judgment. The respondent obtained a taxed bill of costs of UGX 46,415,450 through Taxation Application No. 0105 of 2022, with the applicant's counsel consenting to the amount. The respondent then filed Execution Miscellaneous Application No. 0024 of 2023 seeking recovery of the taxed costs through attachment and sale of the suit property. On 16 November 2023, the applicant filed the present application seeking to stay execution of EMA No. 0024 of 2023 pending appeal. The Deputy Registrar delivered ruling in EMA No. 0024 of 2023 on 23 November 2023, allowing the application and appointing a bailiff for attachment and sale. The applicant claimed the property was in possession of a third party purchaser and that he had filed a notice of appeal against the dismissal of MA No. 0086 of 2023.

Issues

  1. Whether the application before the court is tenable at law.
  2. Whether the application raises grounds for grant of an order of stay of execution.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Res Judicata — Successive Applications Raising Same Issues
A court shall not try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties and has been heard and finally decided by a competent court. An application raising issues of ownership of property already exhaustively determined in a divorce decree and subsequent miscellaneous applications is res judicata.
Stay of Execution — Timing and Effect of Application
Where an application for stay of execution of an execution application is filed before the ruling in that execution application is delivered, the application is overtaken by events once the ruling is delivered. A party cannot seek to stay execution of an order that did not exist at the time the stay application was filed.
Stay of Execution — Requirements for Grant
Under Order 43 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, no order for stay of execution shall be made unless the court is satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made, that the application has been made without unreasonable delay, and that security has been given for due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon the applicant.
Stay of Execution — Relevance of Appeal to Underlying Judgment
An appeal against a decision in a miscellaneous application to set aside a judgment does not provide grounds for staying execution of an order made to recover taxed costs arising from the original judgment, where no appeal has been filed against that original judgment. The appeal must be directly related to the decree or order sought to be stayed.
Abuse of Court Process — Use of Stay Applications to Delay Execution
Where a party's counsel consents to the quantum of a taxed bill of costs and the party subsequently seeks to stay execution of that costs order without justification, the court may find that the party is using the court process to deny or delay the judgment creditor from enjoying the fruits of the judgment, which constitutes an abuse of court process.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Kaddu v Kaddu (Miscellaneous Application 1450 of 2023) [2024] UGHCFD 32 (1 July 2024)
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.