Wakilii

Kimera v Nalwadda Kamanyi and Another (Miscellaneous Application 9 of 2022)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 111 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of judgment pending appeal from Mengo Chief Magistrates Court
Decision
Application dismissed as incompetent; substantive appeal to be heard within 30 days

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

An application for stay of execution is incompetent where the trial court has already considered and granted a conditional stay which the applicant failed to comply with, unless the application challenges the lower court's orders. Filing a fresh application for the same relief before the appellate court without addressing the earlier conditional order amounts to abuse of process. An applicant who makes deliberate falsehoods on oath and forcefully re-enters property after lawful eviction comes to court with unclean hands and demonstrates bad faith. Application dismissed as incompetent.

Outcome

Application dismissed as incompetent; substantive appeal to be heard within 30 days

Facts

The Applicant appealed a judgment from Mengo Chief Magistrates Court in Civil Suit No. 1155 of 2008 which declared him a trespasser, permanently injuncted him, and issued an eviction order. The Applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 809 of 2012 in the Chief Magistrates Court seeking stay of execution, which was granted conditionally upon deposit of UGX 30,000,000 as security within 14 days. The Applicant failed to deposit the security. The Respondents obtained a warrant for vacant possession and the Applicant was forcefully evicted on 13 December 2016. The Applicant, with assistance from the Deputy Resident City Commissioner and police officers, arrested the guards and regained access to the property. The Applicant then filed the present application in the High Court seeking stay of execution pending appeal, falsely claiming in his affidavit in rejoinder that the earlier stay application had been dismissed.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution is properly before the Court.
  2. Whether the application raises sufficient grounds for grant of an order for stay of execution.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
  • The appeal to be fixed for hearing within 30 days from the date of this ruling.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Competence — Second Application After Conditional Grant
Where a trial court has considered and granted an application for stay of execution upon conditions which the applicant has failed to satisfy, it is not open to the applicant to bring a fresh application seeking the same orders before the appellate court unless the application is for the purpose of challenging the lower court's orders.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Process — Deliberate Falsehood on Oath
A deliberate falsehood made on oath before the court constitutes bad faith and amounts to abuse of the court process, particularly where the applicant comes to court with unclean hands and the falsehood goes to the root of the matter.
Civil Procedure — Execution — Resistance to Lawful Execution — Clean Hands
Any action to resist or reverse any part of execution done under an order of the court is illegal, and an application seeking the court's assistance in the face of such illegality is in vain since the court cannot render a helping hand to a party in furtherance of unlawful conduct.

Legislation cited (2)

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.

Kimera v Nalwadda Kamanyi and Another (Miscellaneous Application 9 of 2022) [2024] UGHCCD 111 (10 July 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.