Kamukama Wilber (Administrator Of Estate Of Late Rurunguru John) and 2 Others v Kitazigolokwa Growers Cooperative Society Ltd [2026] UGHCLD 71
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 court granted a stay of execution pending appeal, holding that all the conditions under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules were satisfied. A notice of appeal had been lodged, the application was filed without unreasonable delay, and the threatened eviction of the applicants from land on which they live and derive their livelihood amounted to substantial loss, deprivation of land being treated as substantial loss. Extraction of a decree containing an eviction order constituted a serious and imminent threat of execution, notwithstanding that no execution application had yet been filed. An expressed willingness to provide security suffices; the court fixed security at UGX 20,000,000.
Outcome
Stay of execution granted pending determination of the appeal, subject to deposit of UGX 20,000,000 as security for due performance
Facts
The respondent had sued the late Rurunguru John and the second and third applicants in Civil Suit No. 208 of 2006 in respect of land comprised in LRV 2716 Folio 20, Plot 5 Singo Block 753 at Karewere, Kijunjubwa, Kyankwanzi, Kiboga District. On 4 June 2025 the High Court gave judgment for the respondent, declaring it the lawful owner, finding the applicants were not bona fide occupants, issuing an eviction order, vacating an earlier order of prohibition, and awarding general damages and costs. The applicants filed a notice of appeal on 16 June 2025 and requested the record of proceedings the same day. The respondent extracted a decree on 13 June 2025 containing an order of eviction. The applicants then applied for a stay of execution, averring that they live on and derive their livelihood from the suit land, that eviction would cause irreparable injury and substantial loss, that there was an imminent threat of execution, and that they were willing to provide security for due performance. The respondent contended that filing an appeal is not an automatic stay, that no substantial loss had been proved, and that no threat existed because no execution application had been filed.
Issues
- Whether the applicants established sufficient grounds for the grant of a stay of execution of the decree pending determination of their appeal.
Orders
- Execution of the Decree and Orders in Civil Suit No. 208 of 2006 is stayed pending determination of the applicants' appeal.
- The applicants shall deposit UGX 20,000,000 as security for due performance with the Registrar of the Court within 60 days of the ruling.
- Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (7)
- Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2014)
- Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omollo Ndiege (Miscellaneous Application No. 341 of 2013)
- Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd and 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (Miscellaneous Application No. 379 of 2003)
- Mabu Commodities Ltd v Sophie Nakitende (Miscellaneous Application No. 530 of 2020)
- Kaganda George William v Balinda and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 46 of 2021)
- Sewankambo Dickson v Zziwa Abby (Miscellaneous Application No. 78 of 2005)
- Mwesigwa v Petrol Uganda (Civil Application No. 129 of 2019)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.