Wakilii

Kanyaruju v Muhangi and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 23 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 9 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal from dismissal of judicial review application
Decision
Application dismissed; taxation of costs to proceed while applicant pursues appeal

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Application for stay of execution of costs order dismissed. Court held that taxation of costs could proceed pending appeal because the applicant would not suffer substantial loss, the respondent could refund costs if the appeal succeeded, and the taxation hearing did not affect the substantive issues on appeal. While the intended appeal raised arguable grounds regarding whether the judicial review application was time-barred, the appeal would not affect the costs award which would be determined by the appellate court. Security for due performance is not a condition precedent for stay of execution.

Outcome

Application dismissed; taxation of costs to proceed while applicant pursues appeal

Facts

The applicant filed HCMC No. 16 of 2017 seeking an order of certiorari to quash the respondent's decision disregarding her recommendation to be representative on the District Service Commission. The application was dismissed on a preliminary point of law after the court found it was time-barred. The applicant was condemned in costs. The applicant lodged an appeal against the dismissal and filed this application seeking to stay execution and enforcement of the costs order until the appeal was heard and disposed of. The respondent filed a bill of costs which was fixed for taxation. The respondent opposed the stay application, arguing he was entitled to costs and could refund them if the appeal succeeded.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 43 Rules 1 and 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the applicant would suffer substantial loss if stay of execution is not granted.
  3. Whether the intended appeal has a likelihood of success.
  4. Whether security for due performance of the decree is required as a condition precedent for granting stay of execution.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution disallowed.
  • Taxation hearing to proceed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Substantial Loss
Substantial loss does not represent any particular amount or size and cannot be quantified by any particular mathematical formula; it refers to any loss, great or small, that is of real worth or value, as distinguished from a loss without value or a loss that is merely nominal.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Costs Orders
Where the only order to be executed is a costs order and the respondent is in a position to refund the costs if the appeal succeeds, the applicant will not suffer substantial loss if taxation of the bill of costs proceeds.
Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success — Test
To determine whether an appeal has a likelihood of success, the court does not need to inquire into the substantial aspects of the appeal but rather from the face of the memorandum of appeal, the appeal should raise arguable grounds.
Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Not a Condition Precedent
Security for due performance is not a condition precedent for the grant of an order of stay of execution; the court has discretion to grant stay of execution without security for due performance.
Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Costs versus Entire Decretal Sum
Courts have been reluctant to order security for due performance of the entire decretal sum and have been keen to order security for costs only, because the requirement and insistence on security for the entire decretal amount is likely to stifle appeals.
Stay of Execution — Costs Orders — Effect of Appeal on Costs Award
Where an appeal arises from a matter dismissed on a preliminary point of law with costs awarded, the intended appeal does not affect the costs award; even if the appeal ultimately succeeds, the costs would be decided upon by the appellate court whose orders would bind the respondent.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (6)

  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd and others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Dr. Ann Persis Nakate Lussejere (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2003)
  • John Baptist Kawanga v Namyalo (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2017)
  • Margarette Kato v Nalwo (Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2011)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kanyaruju v Muhangi and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 23 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 9 (17 January 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.