Wakilii

Katsinde and Another v Rubarekyera and Others (Miscellaneous Application 41 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 200 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of High Court judgment pending appeal to Court of Appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent

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 dismissed an application for stay of execution pending appeal. While the applicants filed a competent notice of appeal without delay and raised triable issues, they failed to prove substantial loss or irreparable damage, provided no security for due performance of the decree, and demonstrated no imminent threat of execution. The balance of convenience favoured the respondents who had secured judgment. The cumulative conditions for granting a stay were not satisfied.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent

Facts

The applicants were plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 110 of 2022 at Masaka High Court, which was decided against them on 21 March 2024. They filed a notice of appeal on 25 March 2024 and sought a stay of execution pending their appeal to the Court of Appeal. They claimed the suit land contained their homes, farms, and sustained over 300 heads of cattle, and that eviction would render them homeless and cause loss of livestock. They alleged harassment by the 1st respondent including 24-hour eviction notices. The 1st respondent opposed the application, contending it was premature as no execution steps had been taken, including no bill of costs filed, no notice to show cause, and no warrant of vacant possession issued.

Issues

  1. Whether a stay of execution in Civil Suit No. 110 of 2022 should be granted.
  2. What remedies, if any, are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No. 41 of 2024 is hereby dismissed.
  • Costs of the Application are awarded to the 1st Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Cumulative Conditions
An applicant seeking a stay of execution pending appeal must satisfy cumulative conditions including filing a competent notice of appeal, demonstrating likelihood of substantial loss or irreparable damage, absence of unreasonable delay, provision of security for due performance of the decree, demonstration of triable issues or high likelihood of success on appeal, evidence of serious or imminent threat of execution, and a balance of convenience favouring the grant of the stay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Proof Required
Claims of substantial loss or irreparable damage must be supported by corroborative evidence such as photographs or livestock records. Substantial loss is a tangible, quantifiable detriment requiring specific proof, distinct from speculative or nominal loss. Unsupported assertions in an affidavit are insufficient to establish irreparable harm.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Discretion
Security for due performance of a decree is not a mandatory condition precedent for the grant of a stay of execution, and the court has discretion to grant a stay without security. However, this discretion should be exercised taking into account the circumstances of each application on a case by case basis. Where an applicant has not demonstrated or indicated any willingness to provide security, the court may decline to exercise its discretion to grant a stay without security.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Imminent Threat of Execution — Evidence Required
A stay of execution is justified only where there is a clear, imminent threat of execution, evidenced by steps such as extracting a decree, taxing a bill of costs, applying for a warrant of execution, or issuing a notice to show cause. Allegations of harassment including 24-hour eviction notices must be substantiated by documentary evidence such as photographs, videos, or copies of the notices. Without corroborative evidence, the court cannot act on mere speculation.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Balance of Convenience
The balance of convenience favours the party with a stronger legal position and timely action. Where a respondent has secured judgment, further delay without security for due performance to protect their interests causes prejudice. An applicant's failure to prove imminent harm, provide security, or establish a compelling case tilts the balance against granting a stay.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (11)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Katsinde and Another v Rubarekyera and Others (Miscellaneous Application 41 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 200 (15 April 2025)
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.