Wakilii

Katarikawe Mary Solome v Kanakulya Musa and Others (Miscellaneous Application 183 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 522 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of costs decree pending appeal to Court of Appeal
Decision
Application dismissed; execution of costs decree may proceed

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

Held that an applicant seeking stay of execution of a costs decree must prove irreparable damage or substantial loss beyond vague assertions. Where execution concerns only monetary costs capable of reversal if the appeal succeeds, and the applicant fails to demonstrate how payment cannot be atoned in monetary terms, stay of execution will be refused. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed; execution of costs decree may proceed

Facts

The applicant sued the respondents in the Magistrate's Court of Mpigi in Civil Suit No. 002 of 2020 for declaration orders, vacant possession, permanent injunction, general damages and costs. Judgment was entered in favour of the applicant. The respondents appealed to the High Court in Civil Appeal No. 017 of 2023, which was decided in their favour. The applicant then appealed to the Court of Appeal vide Civil Appeal No. 368 of 2025. The respondents applied for execution of the High Court decree to recover taxed costs of UGX 7,970,000. The applicant brought this application seeking stay of execution of the costs decree pending determination of the Court of Appeal appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether execution of the costs decree should be stayed pending determination of the appeal before the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether the applicant demonstrated irreparable damage or substantial loss warranting a stay of execution.
  3. Whether the balance of convenience favours granting a stay of execution.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Irreparable Damage
An applicant seeking stay of execution must prove irreparable damage or substantial loss beyond vague and general assertions, laying a factual basis upon which the court can make a finding that substantial loss will be suffered if the stay is refused.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Monetary Decrees — Reversibility
Satisfaction of a monetary decree does not ordinarily pose the danger of rendering a pending appeal nugatory because payment made in execution of a monetary decree is presumed to be reversible in the event of a successful appeal, and courts will generally deny stay where only money is sought to be executed.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Purpose and Discretion
The purpose of stay of execution pending appeal is to preserve the status quo of the subject matter in dispute so that the appellant's right of appeal is safeguarded and the appeal, if successful, is not rendered nugatory. The court's discretion to grant stay ought to be exercised judiciously and where it appears equitable to do so.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Property vs Money — Distinction
Where the subject matter of execution is property capable of permanent alienation and therefore capable of causing the appeal to be nugatory, the court will exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. However, where execution concerns only payment of money which can always be returned, courts will generally deny stay.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (8)

  • Lwanga Ben Mberegenya v Kakande Aloysius and Another (HCMA No. 1181 of 2017)
  • Lubega Moses v Nassimbwa Sylivia (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 0122 of 2024)
  • Anatolia Enterprises Ltd v Kiran Dayalji Gajjar and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 89 of 2017)
  • East African Development Bank v Blueline Enterprise Ltd [2006] 2 EA 5
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Pan African Insurance Co Ltd v International Air Transport Association (HCMA No. 86 of 2006)
  • PK Sengendo v Busulwa Lawrence and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 207 of 2014)
  • Andrew Oluka v CNOOC Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 514 of 2022)

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.

Katarikawe Mary Solome v Kanakulya Musa and Others (Miscellaneous Application 183 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 522 (25 March 2026)
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.