Katarikawe Mary Salom v Kanakulya Musa and Others (Civil Miscellaneous Application 636 of 2026)
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 applicant sought to stay execution of a taxed-costs decree of UGX 7,970,000 (recoverable by her arrest) pending her appeal against a High Court finding that the trial magistrate lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. Sitting as a single Judge, the Court held that although the jurisdiction point was legally arguable, the applicant showed no strong likelihood of success because she was bound by pleadings valuing the land at UGX 64,000,000. As the decree was monetary and refundable, execution would not render the appeal nugatory; inability to pay and possible committal were insufficient. The balance of convenience favoured the respondents, who were entitled to their costs. The application was dismissed.
Outcome
Application for stay of execution dismissed; Respondents at liberty to execute for taxed costs
Facts
The applicant sued the respondents in Civil Suit No. 002 of 2020 in the Magistrate's Court at Mpigi over land, obtaining judgment in her favour. On appeal in High Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2023, Hon. Justice Anthony Oyuko Ojok set aside that decision, holding the trial magistrate had no jurisdiction because the plaint pleaded two acres of land purchased at UGX 64,000,000, exceeding a Magistrate Grade One's pecuniary jurisdiction. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 368 of 2025. Following the High Court decision, the respondents commenced execution to recover UGX 7,970,000 in taxed costs by way of arrest of the applicant as judgment debtor. After the High Court refused a stay, the applicant, an elderly widow stating she had no means to pay and only a single plot of land, applied to the Court of Appeal to stay execution pending her appeal.
Issues
- Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of a stay of execution pending the determination of her appeal.
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed.
- The Respondents are at liberty to proceed with execution for recovery of the taxed costs in High Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2023.
- Costs of this application to be in the cause.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (7)
- Lubega v Nassimbwa (Civil Application No. 722 of 2024)
- Twongyeire v Mulumuza (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2017)
- Ssengendo v Busuluwa & Anor (Civil Application No. 207 of 2014)
- Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v Attorney General & Another (Constitutional Application No. 06 of 2013)
- Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkundiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
- Kiiza Sande v Omojong John (Civil Application No. 730 of 2024)
- Roko Construction Limited v Pramukh Steel Limited (Civil Application No. 275 of 2025)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.