Kiiza v Emojong (Civil Application 130 of 2024)

Observed later treatment

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

On an application for a stay of execution pending a second appeal, the single justice restated the Ssekikubo principles. The applicant had made out a prima facie case because the memorandum of appeal raised arguable issues on the award of damages and the visit to the locus in quo. The court held that taxation of a bill of costs alone does not establish irreparable damage, and the applicant neither proved irreparable damage nor furnished security for due performance of the decree. Nonetheless, because the notice of appeal had been lodged without unreasonable delay and the grounds raised triable issues, the court exercised its discretion and granted the stay, with costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Outcome

Stay of execution of the High Court (Jinja) judgment granted pending determination of Civil Appeal No. 306 of 2023

Facts

The applicant, Kiiza Sam, was sued by the respondent, Emojong John, in Civil Suit No. 26 of 2022 in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Mayuge and lost. He appealed to the High Court at Jinja (HCT-03-CV-CA No. 005 of 2022), where Hon. Dr. Justice Winifred Nabisinde dismissed the appeal on 28 April 2023. The applicant filed a notice of appeal in the High Court on 2 May 2023 and lodged a second appeal, Civil Appeal No. 306 of 2023, in the Court of Appeal on 29 July 2023. He first sought a stay of execution in the High Court, which was dismissed in September 2023, and then filed this application in the Court of Appeal in March 2024. The respondent had taxed the bill of costs on 14 July 2023 and was seeking to execute the High Court judgment; the applicant deposed that an arrest warrant had issued and that he was living away from his home.

Issues

1. Whether there was sufficient cause for the Court to grant an order for a stay of execution pending the determination of the applicant's appeal.

Orders

• The application to stay execution is granted.
• Costs shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.6(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.43
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.76
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.105(3)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71 of 2014 Order 43(4)(c)

Cases cited (11)

• Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013) [2013] UGSC 21
• Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkundiye [2015] UGSC 7
• Dr. Ahmed Muhamed Kisuule v Greenland Bank (in liquidation) (Civil Application No. 7 of 2010)
• Hon Michael Mabikke v The Law Development Centre (Civil Application No. 13 of 2015)
• Nahurira Naam Aka Kashaba and 2 Others v Lwanga Mike (Civil Application No. 1021 of 2023)
• J.W.R Kazoora v M.S.L Rukuba (Civil Application No. 49 of 1991)
• Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd v International Credit Bank Ltd (in liquidation) (2004) 2 EA 331
• American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 504
• Haruna Sentongo v I & M Bank Ltd (Civil Application No. 113 of 2023) [2023] UGCA 153
• Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter & 5 Others [2013] eKLR
• Lawrence Musitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)

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.

• Okalang & Another v Aurugai & Another (Miscellaneous Application 278 of 2024)

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