Wakilii

Kijagali David and Another v Bahurire Rossette [2026] UGHC 755

High Court · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for an interim order of stay of execution pending hearing of a substantive application for stay of execution
Decision
Interim stay of execution granted pending hearing of the substantive application for stay of execution

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

An interim order of stay of execution is a first-aid measure pending determination of the substantive application. The applicant need only show a competent notice of appeal, a pending substantive application for stay, and a serious threat of execution; the court will not pre-empt the merits of the substantive application at this stage. Questions such as whether the notice of appeal or application for leave to appeal was filed within time are properly determined at the hearing of the main application. Since the applicants had pending applications for leave to appeal and for stay of execution, and the respondent's advocates had written demanding compliance with the contempt orders whose 30-day compliance period had expired, the interim stay was granted with costs in the cause.

Outcome

Interim stay of execution granted pending hearing of the substantive application for stay of execution

Facts

The respondent had obtained a ruling of the High Court dated 18 May 2026 in a contempt of court application, in which the applicants were found to be in contempt for failing to honour consent orders made in an earlier application. Each applicant was ordered to pay UGX 5,000,000 as compensation and UGX 3,000,000 as a fine, to purge the contempt by requiring subsequent purchasers, successors in title and tenants to vacate the suit land within thirty days, failing which they would be committed to civil prison, and to pay costs. Dissatisfied, the applicants filed an application for leave to appeal against that ruling and a separate substantive application for stay of execution, both pending before the court. They then brought this application for an interim stay, contending that the respondent had commenced execution by letters and by seeking the intervention of police and local authorities, and that they risked committal to civil prison. The respondent opposed the application, asserting that no execution had been commenced beyond forwarding the court order, that the underlying applications were incompetent, and that monetary orders do not render an appeal nugatory. The thirty-day compliance period expired on 18 June 2026.

Issues

  1. Whether sufficient grounds exist for the issuing of an interim order of stay of execution.

Orders

  • The application is granted (interim order of stay of execution issued pending hearing and determination of the substantive application for stay of execution).
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interim Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
An interim order of stay of execution will issue where the applicant establishes a competent notice of appeal, a pending substantive application for stay of execution, and a serious threat of execution before the substantive application is heard.
Civil Procedure — Interim Stay of Execution — Court Not to Pre-empt Merits of Substantive Application
On an application for an interim order of stay, the court does not consider matters reserved for the substantive application, such as whether the notice of appeal or application for leave to appeal was filed within the prescribed time, since an interim order is merely a first-aid intervention pending the substantive determination.
Civil Procedure — Interim Stay of Execution — What Constitutes a Serious Threat of Execution
A demand letter from the decree holder's advocates seeking payment under the court's order, coupled with the expiry of the period allowed for compliance, constitutes a serious threat of execution for purposes of an interim stay.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Jurisdiction — Section 98 Civil Procedure Act and Section 37 Judicature Act
The court's power to grant interim orders derives from its inherent jurisdiction to make such orders as are necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of court, including abuse caused by delay.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Hwan Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
  • China Henan International Cooperation Group Co. Ltd v Justus Kyabahwa (Civil Application No. 30 of 2021)
  • Zubeda Mohammad and Another v Laila Kaka Wajja and Another (Civil Reference No. 7 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kijagali David and Another v Bahurire Rossette [2026] UGHC 755 (24 June 2026)
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.