Wakilii

Kiiza v Bazalirwaki (Miscellaneous Application 56 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 1047 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of decree pending appeal from earlier Land Civil Suit No. 018 of 2020
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed

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

Held that an application for stay of execution must prove lodgment of appeal, serious threat of execution, substantial loss, and be filed without unreasonable delay. The applicant failed to demonstrate serious threat of execution with cogent evidence, as the title cancellation he sought to stay had already occurred before the application was filed, and his fears of sale and eviction were based on speculation. Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The applicant filed a motion for stay of execution of a decree in Land Civil Suit No. 018 of 2020, which ordered cancellation of title in Bunyangabu Block 76, Plot 3. The applicant lodged a notice of appeal on 9 April 2024, four days after the judgment. He alleged that the respondent had sold part of the suit land measuring 30 acres around June 2024 and that people suspected to be buyers had inspected the portion he occupied. The respondent filed an application for cancellation of the title based on the decree. The applicant argued he would suffer irreparable loss and the appeal would be rendered nugatory without a stay. The respondent opposed, stating the application was overtaken by events as the title was cancelled on 9 May 2024 before the application was filed. The respondent also denied any sale of the decreed land and stated the applicant was illegally occupying two acres.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause warranting grant of an order of stay of execution of the orders of this court in land civil suit no. 018 of 2020.
  2. What remedies are proper in the circumstances?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements — Proof of Lodgment of Appeal
A notice of appeal is the first step in the appeal process and must be lodged in duplicate with the registrar of the High Court within 14 days from the date the decision was made. Lodgment of an appeal is a necessary but not sufficient condition for granting a stay of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Serious Threat of Execution — Evidentiary Threshold
An order of stay of execution cannot be granted as a matter of course or based on mere speculation. The threat must be a direct peril, immediate and impending, and not merely remote, uncertain, or contingent. There should be unequivocal evidence showing that specific verifiable steps have been taken by the respondent to convey the imminent reality of execution, such as extracting the decree, presenting and having a bill of costs taxed, applying for issuance of a warrant of execution, or issuing a notice to show cause.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Application Overtaken by Events
Where the act sought to be stayed by an application for stay of execution has already occurred before the application is filed, the court cannot purport to stay what has already taken place. The application is overtaken by events and must fail on that ground.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions 2000 Rule 76(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions 2000 Rule 76(2)

Cases cited (7)

  • Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Dr. Ahmed Muhammed Kisule v Greenland Bank (in Liquidation) (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 7 of 2010)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v The Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 06 of 2013)
  • Uganda v Ntambi Vincent (Supreme Court Criminal Application No. 08 of 2019)
  • Junaco (T) Ltd & 2 others v DFCU Bank Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0027 of 2023)
  • Paul Barozi & Anor v Christopher Nicodemus Winyi (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 027 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiiza v Bazalirwaki (Miscellaneous Application 56 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1047 (17 October 2024)
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.