Kazibwe Sam v Bunyangabu District Land Board and Another (HCT-01-LD-MA-0010-2026)

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 High Court dismissed the application for stay of execution pending appeal. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss or any credible imminent threat of execution. Mere apprehension of execution without concrete evidence of enforcement steps does not suffice to establish substantial loss. The absence of any demonstrated threat of execution undermined the argument that the appeal would be rendered nugatory.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant's civil suit (HCT-01-LD-CS-0030-2020) was dismissed on 26 February 2026, with the court declaring the 2nd respondent as the rightful proprietor of the contested land. On 5 March 2026, the applicant filed a Notice of Appeal and applied for a stay of execution, claiming he would suffer irreparable loss if the respondents executed the decree before his appeal was heard. The applicant asserted he had occupied and developed the suit land since 2019, though it was registered in the 2nd respondent's name in 2020. Both respondents opposed the application, denying any imminent execution proceedings. The 1st respondent stated it had no proprietary interest in the land and had initiated no execution. The 2nd respondent argued the applicant failed to establish the mandatory requirements for a stay and had not provided security for the decree.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant satisfied the statutory requirements for a stay of execution pending appeal under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. Whether the applicant demonstrated that substantial loss would result if the stay was not granted.
3. Whether the application was brought without unreasonable delay.
4. Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if execution proceeded.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 Rule 4(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 Rule 4(3)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 Rule 4(5)
• Registration of Titles Act

Cases cited (1)

• Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)

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