Wakilii

Kamukama Wilber (Administrator Of Estate Of Late Rurunguru John) and 2 Others v Kitazigolokwa Growers Cooperative Society Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1599 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 1599 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of decree pending determination of appeal to Court of Appeal
Decision
Stay of execution granted pending appeal with security for due performance ordered

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

Court granted stay of execution pending appeal. Applicants satisfied all prerequisites under Order 43 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules: notice of appeal lodged without unreasonable delay, substantial loss would result from eviction from land on which applicants derive livelihood, willingness to provide security demonstrated, and decree extraction constituted imminent threat of execution. Security for due performance set at UGX 20,000,000.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted pending appeal with security for due performance ordered

Facts

Respondent obtained judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 208 of 2006 ordering eviction of applicants from land LRV 2716 Folio 20, Plot 5 Singo Block 753 at Karewere, Kijunjubwa, Kyankwanzi, Kiboga District. Judgment delivered 4 June 2025 held respondent was lawful owner, applicants were not bonafide occupants, and ordered eviction. Applicants filed notice of appeal 16 June 2025. Respondent extracted decree 13 June 2025. Applicants live on and derive livelihood from the suit land. They sought stay of execution pending appeal to prevent irreparable loss.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants have sufficient grounds for a grant of stay of execution pending 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 this Court within 60 days of this ruling.
  • Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Prerequisites for Grant Pending Appeal
For a stay of execution pending appeal to be granted under Order 43 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, an applicant must satisfy four mandatory conditions: (1) a notice of appeal has been lodged; (2) substantial loss may result if the stay is not granted; (3) the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (4) security has been given or willingness to provide security demonstrated for due performance of the decree.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Meaning and Proof
Substantial loss for purposes of stay of execution means actual loss, whether great or small, as opposed to nominal damages, and is not determined by any mathematical formula. The loss must be proved by evidence and not mere statements. Deprivation and eviction from land on which applicants live and derive livelihood constitutes substantial loss.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance
It is sufficient for purposes of Order 43 Rule 4(3)(c) that an applicant expresses willingness to give security for costs rather than security for the entire decree value. The specific form and amount of security is determined by the court depending on the circumstances of the case and is intended to protect the respondent from risk that the applicant may not be able to satisfy the decree.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Imminent Threat of Execution — Extraction of Decree
Extraction of a decree by a decree holder constitutes an imminent threat of execution for purposes of stay of execution applications. By extracting a decree, the next step for the decree holder is to execute it, and until it is set aside there is nothing to stop application for execution. It is not necessary that a formal application for execution has already been filed.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (7)

  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and others v Attorney General and others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2014)
  • Kyanibogo University versus Prof. Isaiah Omollo Ndicge, C.O.A MA No.34I 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 versus Sophie Nakitcndc Misc. Application No.530 of 2020
  • Kaganda George William versus Balinda and others, HCMA. No.46 Of 2021
  • Sevvankambo Dickson Vs Zziwa Abby, HCT-OO-CC-MA-78 of 2005
  • Mwesigwa v Petrol Uganda (Civil Application No. 129 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kamukama_Wilber_(Administrator_Of_Estate_Of_Late_Rurunguru_John)_and_2_Others_v_Kitazigolokwa_Growers_Cooperative_Society_Ltd_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._1599_of_2025)_[2026]_UG
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.