Wakilii

Katerega Nalika v Uganda Land Commission and Another (Civil Case No. 1030 of 1998)

High Court · [1999] UGHC 59 · 1999 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal
Decision
Stay of execution and taxation granted; applicant ordered to deposit title as security pending appeal

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 High Court granted a stay of execution and stay of taxation pending appeal, exercising inherent powers under section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act. The court found substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, but no security given as required by Order 39 Rule 4(3)(c). Rather than dismiss the application, the court ordered the applicant to deposit the unencumbered certificate of title for Plot 28 Factory Road, Ntinda as security for the respondents' costs pending appeal.

Outcome

Stay of execution and taxation granted; applicant ordered to deposit title as security pending appeal

Facts

The plaintiff was unsuccessful in Civil Case No. 1030 of 1998, in which the defendants obtained judgment. The plaintiff filed notice of appeal dated 22 June 1998. The defendants served a taxation notice dated 25 September 1998 for hearing on 5 October 1998. The plaintiff applied for stay of execution and stay of taxation, deposing that if forced to sell his only property, Plot 28 Factory Road, Ntinda, to meet the defendants' bill of costs (estimated at UGX 10,276,000), it would be very difficult to recover that amount and his taxed costs if the appeal succeeded. The defendants opposed the application.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for a stay of execution pending appeal under Order 39 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the court could invoke its inherent powers under section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act to order security for costs in lieu of strict compliance with Order 39 Rule 4(3)(c).

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution, inclusive of taxation of the Respondents' bill of costs, is allowed.
  • The Applicant shall deposit in Court the Certificate of Title of unencumbered Plot 28 Factory Road, Ntinda as security for the Respondents' costs pending final disposal of the appeal.
  • Costs of this application shall abide the event of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements under Order 39 Rule 4(3)
An order for stay of execution under Order 39 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules requires satisfaction of three cumulative conditions: (a) that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made; (b) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (c) that security has been given for due performance of the decree or order ultimately binding on the applicant.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Practice and Procedure
In general, an application for stay of execution should be made informally to the judge who decided the case when judgment is delivered, who may direct that a formal motion be presented on notice after a notice of appeal has been filed.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers — Section 101 Civil Procedure Act
Where the applicant satisfies two of three conditions under Order 39 Rule 4(3) but has not provided security, the court may invoke its inherent powers under section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act to make such order as is necessary for the ends of justice, including ordering alternative security such as deposit of a certificate of title.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.101
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.48 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.48 r.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.39 r.4
  • Court of Appeal Rules and Directions 1995 r.5(2)(b)

Cases cited (5)

  • JOSEPH OWOKO vs. E. MUGARU 1976 HCB 332
  • IN RE, A TOKELLO VS. M/S KAYONDO & CO., ADVOCATES
  • Lawrence Musitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • MIJJA SINGH Vs. RUNDI COFFEE ESTATES I, [1956] E.A. 263
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Uganda Bottlers Ltd (Civil Application No. 25 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Katerega Nalika v Uganda Land Commission and Another (Civil Case No. 1030 of 1998) [1999] UGHC 59 (31 March 1999)
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.