Kategaya v Sebaliga & 2 Others (Civil Application 449 of 2024)

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.

Holding

The single Justice dismissed the application for a stay of execution. Having already obtained a stay of execution from the High Court on terms she found stringent and with which she failed to comply, the applicant could not approach the Court of Appeal for the same relief merely because she disliked those terms; her proper recourse was to appeal against or seek review of the High Court's terms. Filing numerous applications over the same matter across the High Court and the Court of Appeal amounted to forum shopping and an abuse of the court process. A court order must be obeyed unless set aside or varied. The application was found to be without merit and dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant claimed to be a bonafide occupant and owner of land at Muyenga, comprised in LRV 453 Folio 2 Plot 480, which she said she acquired from the 2nd respondent in part exchange for residential property at Kololo, and on which she held a subsisting 99-year lease. In Civil Suit No. 634 of 2007, the High Court (Land Division) entered judgment for the respondents, ordering cancellation of the instrument extending the lease, holding the lease valid only to 30 December 2007, and directing payment of UGX 50,000,000 as punitive damages plus costs; the applicant was to be evicted. The applicant filed multiple applications. She was granted a stay of execution in the High Court (Misc. Application No. 288 of 2019) on terms, including security, which she did not satisfy, and a consent stay in HCMA No. 1274 of 2022. She then applied to the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution pending appeal, contending the High Court's terms were excessive and that eviction would cause irreparable loss.

Issues

1. Whether an applicant who has been granted a stay of execution by the High Court, on terms she considers stringent, can move the Court of Appeal for the same relief.
2. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal.
3. Whether the application amounted to forum shopping and an abuse of the court process.

Orders

• Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Act s.82
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 r.4(2),(3),(5)
• Court of Appeal Rules r.5
• Court of Appeal Rules r.6(2)(b)
• Court of Appeal Rules r.2(2)

Cases cited (6)

• Zubeda Mohammed and another v Laila Kaka Walila and Another (Civil Reference No. 7 of 2016)
• Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v The Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2015)
• Parambot Breweries Ltd (In Receivership) v Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 265 of 2018)
• Amrit Gogar v Harichand Gogal and 3 Others (Civil Application No. 109 of 2004)
• Emmanuel Kato v Muganzi Mbabali (Civil Application No. 343 of 2018)
• Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik V Pradnya Prakash Khadekar (2017) 5 SCC 496

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