Wakilii

Kiggundu Paul and Another v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application 32 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCACD 18 · 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 ruling pending appeal to Court of Appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed for being devoid of merit

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Held that an application for stay of execution pending appeal must be supported by identifiable grounds of appeal demonstrating that the intended appeal is neither frivolous nor vexatious and raises serious questions of law and fact. Where applicants fail to file a memorandum of appeal or state intended grounds of appeal in their affidavits, the court cannot ascertain likelihood of success. Submissions by counsel cannot cure defects in pleadings. Application dismissed for failure to establish grounds demonstrating likelihood of success on appeal.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed for being devoid of merit

Facts

The Applicants had filed an application for violation of their human rights during investigations leading to their prosecution in Criminal Session Case No. 83 of 2022. On 14 April 2025, the High Court ruled that the Applicants' right to personal liberty was violated by agents of the Respondent. The 1st Applicant was illegally detained for 13 days and the 2nd Applicant for 27 days. The court awarded general damages of UGX 15,000,000 and UGX 25,000,000 respectively but declined to nullify the ongoing criminal trial. The Applicants filed a Notice of Appeal on 2 May 2025 and subsequently brought this application seeking stay of execution of the ruling pending determination of their appeal. The Applicants did not file a memorandum of appeal or state intended grounds of appeal in their affidavits, claiming they were awaiting lower court proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants' application for stay of execution has merit.
  2. What remedies are available for the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Preconditions for Grant
For an applicant to be successfully granted a stay of execution pending appeal, the applicant must establish that the appeal has likelihood of success or a prima facie case of right of appeal; that the applicant will suffer irreparable damage or that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if a stay is not granted; if the first two conditions are not established, the court must consider where the balance of convenience lies; and the applicant must establish that the application was instituted without delay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success — Proof Required
To establish likelihood of success of an intended appeal, it is not necessary to pre-empt consideration of matters necessary in deciding whether the appeal would succeed, neither is it incumbent on applicants to demonstrate the possibility of success, but they must prove that the appeal is not frivolous and vexatious by demonstrating that their appeal raises serious questions of law and fact.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Grounds of Appeal — Requirement to State in Affidavit or Memorandum
Where applicants seek stay of execution pending appeal, they must lay out intended grounds of appeal either in the form of an intended memorandum of appeal or at the very least state the grounds in their affidavits. Failure to state any identifiable grounds of appeal in the application deprives the court of any basis to ascertain whether the intended appeal is neither frivolous nor vexatious and therefore likely to succeed.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Submissions Cannot Cure Defects in Pleadings
Submissions are always informed by pleadings and it is not open to counsel to raise any matters in submissions outside of what was already specifically pleaded to court. Parties are bound by their pleadings and an omission to plead intended grounds of appeal is fatal and cannot be cured in submissions. The spirit and principle of Order 6 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules extends to submissions in the interests of maintaining consistency and structure in court litigation.
Civil Procedure — High Court Jurisdiction — Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules governs appeals to the High Court and is not applicable to stay of execution of High Court orders pending appeal to the Court of Appeal. The High Court has inherent jurisdiction under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to stay any of its orders pending appeal.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (4)

  • Akankwasa Damian v Uganda (Constitutional Applications No. 7 and 9 of 2011)
  • Mugenyi & Co. Advocates v NIC (1992-93) HCB 82
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omollo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Orute Aloysius and 4 Others v Alupo Esther (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 960 of 2023)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiggundu Paul and Another v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application 32 of 2025) [2025] UGHCACD 18 (11 August 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.