Wakilii

Kagoro Epimarc v Jotena and Another (Miscellaneous Application 1985 of 2022; Miscellaneous Application No. 942 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 339 · 2022 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal from ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 942 of 2022
Decision
Applicant granted leave to appeal but denied stay of execution

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 granted the applicant leave to appeal the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 942 of 2022, finding that the applicant had satisfied the requirements by demonstrating an arguable case with reasonable prospects of success and raising grounds of law meriting appellate consideration. The court declined to grant a stay of execution, holding that it had already pronounced itself on that issue in an earlier decision and no new grounds had been raised.

Outcome

Applicant granted leave to appeal but denied stay of execution

Facts

The applicant sought leave to appeal a ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 942 of 2022, which arose from Miscellaneous Application No. 943 of 2022, both stemming from HCCS No. 59 of 2010. The applicant contended that the dismissal of Application No. 942 of 2022 was not appealable as of right and therefore required leave. The applicant also sought a stay of execution, arguing that costs of the application for stay had been wrongly determined and that the arrest of the applicant could not prevent the second respondent from executing his decree. The first respondent did not participate. The second respondent opposed the application, arguing there were no substantial questions of law and that the stay of execution issue had already been determined.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 942 of 2022.
  2. Whether the applicant should be granted a stay of execution.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 942 of 2022 is granted to the applicant.
  • The prayer for stay of execution is not granted.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Requirements for Grant of Leave
An applicant seeking leave to appeal must clearly show the grounds upon which he or she intends to appeal and must illustrate the likelihood of success of such an application by laying out those grounds. It is not enough for an applicant to aver that one is aggrieved with a decision of the court.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Test for Grant of Leave
An applicant seeking leave to appeal must show either that the intended appeal has a reasonable chance of success or that there are arguable grounds of appeal which merit appellate consideration. What amounts to a question of law is that the issue raised or involved is one of general principle which is yet to be decided or the first time or which is to be decided for the first time or where the question is one on which further argument and a decision of the superior court would be to the public advantage.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Res Judicata
Where a court has already pronounced itself on the issue of stay of execution between the parties and no new grounds have been cited, the court will not grant a fresh application for stay of execution on the same matter.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • Sango Estates Ltd and Others v Dresdner Bank
  • Herbert Sekandi t/a Land Developers v Crane Bank Ltd (HCMA No. 44 of 2001)
  • Alley Route Ltd v Uganda Development Bank Ltd (HCMA No. 634 of 2006)
  • Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v URA (CACA No. 16 of 1996)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kagoro_Epimarc_v_Jotena_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_1985_of_2022;_Miscellaneous_Application_No._942_of_2022)_[2022]_UGHCLD_339_(12_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.