Kajunjube and 3 Others v Kasigwa (Miscellaneous Application 102 of 2022)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

Held that a Notice of Appeal is sufficient expression of intention to appeal where the delay in filing a memorandum is due to court's failure to release the record of proceedings. Substantial loss is a qualitative concept referring to loss of real worth, not merely nominal loss. Where land with sentimental value faces potential sale, this constitutes substantial loss not adequately compensated by damages. An application filed two months after judgment and within one week of end of court vacation is not unreasonably delayed. Security for due performance must protect the successful party without deterring the right to appeal.

Outcome

Execution stayed pending appeal subject to deposit of UGX 20,000,000 as security within 30 days

Facts

The applicants were defendants in Civil Suit No. 22 of 2007 at the Chief Magistrate's Court, Masindi, which was decided in their favour. The respondent successfully appealed to the High Court in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2019, with judgment delivered on 19 June 2022 in his favour. The applicants filed a Notice of Appeal on 24 June 2022 intending to appeal to the Court of Appeal. They requested the record of proceedings on 30 June 2022 but had not received it by the time of this application. The suit concerns family land which the applicants claim to have occupied since inheriting it from their father in 1979. The respondent claims to have lived on the land since his birth in 1948. The applicants alleged the respondent was advertising the land for sale. The applicants brought this application on 15 August 2022 seeking stay of execution pending their appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the applicants lodged a Notice of Appeal sufficient to ground the application for stay of execution.
2. Whether substantial loss would result to the applicants unless stay of execution is granted.
3. Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay.
4. What quantum of security should be required for due performance of the decree.

Orders

• Application for stay of execution granted.
• Applicants to deposit security for due performance amounting to UGX 20,000,000 within 30 days.
• Security to be deposited on account of the Registrar, High Court.
• Costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.33
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 43 rule 4
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 52 rules 1 and 2

Cases cited (11)

• Kyazze v Businge (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 13 of 1990)
• Ssekikubo & Ors (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
• Maniraguha v Nkudiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015) [2015] UGSC 7
• Equity Bank (U) Ltd v Were (HCMA No. 604 of 2013)
• Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Cogecot Cotton SA (1995-1999) 1 EA 312
• Hoima Municipal Council v Karamagi (Miscellaneous Application No. 32 of 2021) [2022]
• Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd & 2 Ors v International Credit Bank (In Liquidation) (2004)
• China Henan International Cooperation Group Co. Ltd v Kyabahwa (Miscellaneous Application No. 721 of 2020)
• Odongo v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 38 of 2017) [2021] UGCC 30
• Musherure v Bamuhiga (HCMA No. 15 of 2004)
• Manenthi & Anor v Africa Merchant Assurance Co. Ltd [2019] eKLR

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.

• Namuli v Uganda Revenue Authority (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 103 of 2022)

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