Wakilii

Kasinzi alias Gatsinzi v Kisiki and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2067 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 75 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to vary conditions for stay of execution arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 1493 of 2022, itself arising from Civil Suit No. 156 of 2014
Decision
Application for variation of stay conditions dismissed

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

The High Court dismissed an application to vary conditions for stay of execution. The applicant sought to reduce security for costs from UGX 20,000,000 to UGX 10,000,000 and extend the payment period from 30 days to 4 months. The court held that the original security amount was fair in comparison to the suit land value and costs awarded. The applicant failed to demonstrate ability or willingness to comply with the stay conditions by depositing even partial payment during the three months since the original ruling. The court declined to exercise discretion to vary its own conditional stay order, finding the application intended to delay execution.

Outcome

Application for variation of stay conditions dismissed

Facts

The applicant was the defendant in Civil Suit No. 156 of 2014, which was determined in favour of the respondents. He filed a notice of appeal and Miscellaneous Application No. 1493 of 2022 seeking stay of execution. On 23 November 2022, the court granted stay of execution conditional upon the applicant paying UGX 20,000,000 as security for costs within 30 days. The ruling was emailed to counsel on 29 November 2022. The applicant filed this application seeking to reduce the security to UGX 10,000,000 and extend the payment period to 4 months, claiming financial constraints from legal fees and alleged destruction by respondents. The underlying suit concerned approximately 980 acres of land, with 640 acres decreed to the estate of the late Hajjat Mitina Nakanwagi, valued at approximately UGX 4.9 billion. Costs awarded in the main suit totalled UGX 386,680,000. Nearly three months passed after receipt of the stay ruling without the applicant depositing any payment.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is properly before the court.
  2. Whether the court should vary the amount of security for costs from UGX 20,000,000 to UGX 10,000,000.
  3. Whether the period for payment of security should be extended from 30 days to 4 months.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Court's Discretion to Vary
A court that grants a conditional stay of execution cannot exercise discretionary powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and section 33 of the Judicature Act to vary its own conditional order where such variation would amount to a veiled appeal against its own decision.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Costs — Assessment of Adequacy
Security for due performance under Order 43 rule 4(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules must be assessed in comparison with the value of the subject matter and costs awarded; where security ordered represents approximately 0.38% of total value and costs, it is fair and reasonable.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Delivery of Ruling — Computation of Time
Where a ruling is signed on one date but delivered by email on a later date, the period for compliance with conditions in the ruling begins to run from the date of delivery by email, not the date of signature.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Demonstration of Willingness to Comply
An applicant seeking variation of stay conditions must demonstrate ability and willingness to comply with the original conditions by at least depositing a partial payment; failure to deposit any amount over three months creates an impression that the application is intended to further delay execution.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

  • Musiiwa v Eunice Busingye (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)

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.

Kasinzi_alias_Gatsinzi_v_Kisiki_and_2_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._2067_of_2022)_[2023]_UGHCLD_75_(29_March_2023)
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.