Wakilii

Katsinde George and Another v Rubarekyera George and Others (Civil Application No. 184 of 2025)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 246 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single justice of the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution pending appeal
Decision
Stay of execution granted pending the hearing and determination of Civil Appeal No.0264 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.

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

On an application for stay of execution pending appeal, the single justice held that the applicants satisfied the Ssekikubo conditions: the pending land appeal raised arguable questions of law and fact, the applicants would suffer irreparable harm from eviction from their home, farm and sole source of livelihood, and the balance of convenience favoured them. Security for due performance was held to be a matter of judicial discretion, not a mandatory requirement, and inequitable on these facts. The preliminary objection that the supporting affidavit lacked the first applicant's authority was dismissed, since a co-applicant with a joint interest may swear to facts within his knowledge without written authority. The application was granted and execution stayed.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted pending the hearing and determination of Civil Appeal No.0264 of 2024

Facts

The applicants sued the respondents in the High Court at Masaka, claiming to be the lawful registered proprietors of land comprised in Ranch block 5783 (Plots 1 and 2), which they had purchased from Kyabahwa Justus. They alleged that the first and third respondents had colluded to fraudulently create parallel interests on the same land. The respondents denied collusion, contended that the applicants' titles were issued in error and had been lawfully cancelled, and counterclaimed for eviction. On 21 March 2024 the High Court dismissed the suit, granted an eviction order against the applicants and awarded the respondents general damages of UGX 2 billion with interest at 20% per annum. The applicants filed an appeal and sought a stay of execution in the High Court, which was refused, prompting this application. The applicants remain in possession of the land, which contains their homes and farms, supports over 300 head of cattle, and which they describe as their sole source of livelihood after 30 years' occupation.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in support, sworn by the second applicant without written authority of the first applicant, was defective and should be struck out.
  2. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal.
  3. Whether the deposit of security for due performance of the decree is a mandatory condition for the grant of a stay of execution.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is dismissed.
  • Execution of the decree in Masaka High Court Civil Suit No.110 of 2022 is stayed pending the hearing and determination of Civil Appeal No.0264 of 2024.
  • Costs of this application shall abide the result of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Affidavits — Affidavit by a co-party with joint interest — Authority of other parties
A party to an application who deposes to facts within his own knowledge, without purporting to represent a co-party, does not require the written authority of co-parties who share a joint interest; such an affidavit is not defective for want of authority.
Affidavit evidence — Unchallenged averments — Deemed admitted
Evidence on affidavit that is not challenged is deemed admitted under section 57 of the Evidence Act, and where co-applicants have a joint interest, repetition of the same facts by each is unnecessary.
Stay of execution — Conditions for grant
A stay of execution pending appeal may be granted where the applicant establishes a likelihood of success or a prima facie right of appeal, that he will suffer irreparable damage or that the appeal will be rendered nugatory absent a stay, and, failing those, that the balance of convenience favours him, the application having been brought without undue delay.
Stay of execution — Irreparable damage
Irreparable injury does not require physical impossibility of repair; it means an injury that cannot be adequately atoned for by an award of damages, such as the eviction of occupants from land that is their home and sole source of livelihood.
Stay of execution — Security for due performance — Discretionary not mandatory
The provision of security for due performance of a decree is not an absolute requirement for the grant of a stay of execution but a matter of judicial discretion depending on the circumstances, and may be dispensed with where its imposition would be inequitable.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (13)

  • Augustine Mukiibi v Hosanna Evangelistic Mission and 4 others (Civil Application No. 295 of 2017)
  • Theodore Ssekikubo and others v Attorney General and others (Constitutional Application No. 06 of 2013)
  • Osman Kassim Ramathan v Century Bottling Company Ltd (Civil Application No. 35 of 2019)
  • Bishop Patrick Baligasiima v Kiiza Daniel and others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1495 of 2016)
  • MHK Engineering Services (U) Ltd Vs MacDowell Ltd
  • Lena Nakalema Binaisa & 3 others v Mucunguzi Myres (Miscellaneous Application No. 05460 of 2013)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businge (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Bankone Limited v Simbamanyo Estates Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 645 of 2020)
  • Namutebi Matilda v Ssemanda Simon and 2 others (Miscellaneous Application No. 0430 of 2021)
  • Kafu Sugar Limited & another v Kiryandongo Sugar Ltd & another (Civil Application No. 607 of 2024)
  • Joel Kato and Margaret Kato v Nuulu Nalwoga (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2012)
  • Junaco (T) Limited and 2 others v DFCU Bank Ltd (Civil Application No. 145 of 2023)
  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co [1973] EA 358

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Katsinde George and Another v Rubarekyera George and Others (Civil Application No. 184 of 2025) [2025] UGCA 246 (23 July 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.