Wakilii

Kalungi Moses v Kampala Capital City Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 1829 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 67 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of proceedings pending appeal from an interlocutory ruling
Decision
Application for stay of proceedings dismissed on the ground that the underlying appeal is incompetent

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

Held that an application for stay of proceedings pending appeal cannot succeed where the underlying appeal is incompetent. Where an appeal arises from an interlocutory ruling on a preliminary point of law, leave to appeal is required under Order 44 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. An appeal filed without the requisite leave is incompetent and cannot form the basis for a stay application. The court validated a late-filed affidavit in reply in the interests of justice where no prejudice was suffered. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for stay of proceedings dismissed on the ground that the underlying appeal is incompetent

Facts

The Applicant was the Respondent in Miscellaneous Application No. 2706 of 2024 arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 37 of 2023. On 25 April 2025, the court granted the Respondent's application to amend pleadings and substitute parties. Dissatisfied, the Applicant filed a notice of appeal and Civil Appeal No. 438 of 2025 without first seeking leave to appeal. The Applicant then brought this application seeking to stay proceedings in Miscellaneous Cause No. 37 of 2023 pending the appeal. The Respondent opposed, arguing that the appeal was incompetent for lack of leave and had filed Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 465 of 2025 to strike out the appeal. The Applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 2944 of 2025 seeking to validate the appeal. The Respondent filed its affidavit in reply approximately two months after service, without seeking an extension of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's affidavit in reply was filed out of time and should be struck off?
  2. Whether the application discloses sufficient grounds for the grant of an order of stay of proceedings in Miscellaneous Cause No. 37 of 2023?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Requirement for Leave
Where an appeal arises from a decision on a preliminary point of law in an interlocutory application, the appeal is not appealable as of right and requires leave of court under Order 44 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Proceedings — Competence of Underlying Appeal
An application for stay of proceedings pending appeal cannot succeed where the notice of appeal and the appeal are incompetent. Where no right of appeal exists or leave has not been obtained when required, there is no pending appeal to form the basis for a stay application.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Late Filing — Validation
Where an affidavit in reply is filed out of time without leave, the court may validate it in the interests of justice under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act where the opposing party has responded to the averments and suffered no prejudice.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Statutory Right
The right of appeal is not inherent but exists only when expressly conferred by statute. Where no right of appeal exists, none can be implied.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (14)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
  • Attorney General v Oriental Construction Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1990)
  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Dr. Lam Lagoro James v Muni University (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 07 of 2016)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and 3 Others v Attorney General & 4 Others (Supreme Court Constitutional Application No. 06 of 2013)
  • Hwak Insurances Ltd v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 659 of 2002)
  • Olivia da Ritta Siqueira E Facho v Siqueira [1933] 15 KLR 34
  • Jadva Karsan v Harnam Singh Bhogal [1953] 20 EACA 74
  • Simba Properties Investment Co. Ltd & Others v Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership & Another (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 1299 of 2023)
  • Attorney General v Shah (No. 0004) [1971] EA 50
  • Kasirye, Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates v Uganda Development Bank [2008] 2 EA 293
  • Zubeda Mohamed & Another v Laila Kaka Walia & Another (Supreme Court Civil Reference No. 07 of 2016)
  • Lukwago Erias v KCCA (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 06 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kalungi Moses v Kampala Capital City Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 1829 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 67 (10 February 2026)
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.