Kasinde & Anor v Kihonde & Anor (Civil Application No. 259 of 2018)

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

A single Justice of the Court of Appeal struck out an application for an interim order staying execution. The applicants supplied no grounds explaining why the application was filed directly in the Court of Appeal contrary to Rule 42(1), which requires such applications to be made first in the High Court. More fundamentally, the notice of appeal attached was defective and not in the prescribed Form D, failing to specify the date of the decision appealed against, and it was conceded to have been served out of time. Since there was no competent notice of appeal, there was no valid appeal to support an interlocutory application. The application was accordingly incompetent and struck out with costs.

Outcome

Application struck out with costs for being incompetent

Facts

The applicants were sued by the respondents in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Mbarara over land, and judgment was entered for the respondents. The applicants' appeal to the High Court (Civil Appeal No. 041 of 2016) was dismissed. They then filed a notice of appeal in the High Court and a main application in the Court of Appeal (Civil Application No. 258 of 2018) seeking, among other things, extension of time and stay of execution. This application sought an interim order staying execution pending determination of the main application. The respondents objected that the application should first have been made in the High Court under Rule 42(1), that there was no competent notice of appeal, and that the notice of appeal had not been served on them. The notice of appeal attached was not in prescribed Form D and gave conflicting decision dates (10 July 2017 and 26 September 2017), while being filed on 27 September 2017.

Issues

1. Whether the application for an interim order of stay of execution filed directly in the Court of Appeal was competent given the requirement under Rule 42(1) to file first in the High Court.
2. Whether a valid notice of appeal had been lodged in accordance with Rule 76 so as to found the court's interlocutory jurisdiction.
3. Whether the failure to grant the interim order would render the main application nugatory.

Orders

• The application for an interim order of stay of execution is incompetent and struck out with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Judicature Act s.12(1)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.2(2)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.6(2)(b)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.42(1)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.42(2)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.43(1)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.76
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.83(3)
• Land Act Cap.227 s.39

Cases cited (2)

• National Pharmacy Ltd v KCC [1979] HCB 132
• Francis Nansio Micah v Nuwa Walakira (Civil Application No. 9 of 1990)

Cases citing this judgment (5)

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.

• Okiror Bob v Ijoku Priscilla Suzan and Others (Civil Appeal No. 77 of 2020)
• Royal Auto Parts Limited v BPI Uganda Investments Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2294 of 2025)
• Uganda Revenue Authority v Nyanga Oburofa Enterprises Ltd and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1821 of 2025)
• Mugenyi Christopher and Another v Nasuna Jane (Miscellaneous Application No. 1472 of 2025)
• Samuel Okurut and Another v Stanbic Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application 1765 of 2025)

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