Wakilii

Kirunda v Narendra & Another (HCT-03-CV-MA 52 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 952 · 2024 Application Granted with Conditions AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal from High Court judgment in Civil Suit No. 033 of 2019
Decision
Stay of execution granted conditionally pending determination of Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 0100 of 2022

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: Application for stay of execution pending appeal granted with conditions. The court found that the applicant satisfied most of the conditions for granting a stay: there was a pending appeal with arguable grounds; substantial loss could result to the applicant if execution proceeded, including eviction from the suit property; and there was an imminent threat of execution. However, the application was lodged late (one year after judgment). The court ordered the applicant to deposit half the taxed costs in the court account within 30 days as a precondition to the stay.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted conditionally pending determination of Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 0100 of 2022

Facts

The respondents instituted Civil Suit No. 33 of 2019 against the applicant claiming ownership of one-third of property on land comprised under LRV 4477 Folio 18 (Plot 19) Main Street in Jinja City. The suit was decided in the respondents' favour on 22 March 2022. The applicant filed Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 0100 of 2022 challenging the entire judgment. The applicant had lodged a caveat on the suit property. The respondents initiated execution proceedings including an application for eviction and arrest (EMA No. 325 of 2024). The applicant also lodged a fresh caveat on 12 March 2024. On 15 March 2024 the applicant was served with the respondents' application for execution and notice to show cause. The applicant filed the instant application for stay of execution on 21 March 2024. The applicant resides in part of the suit property with his family and rents out the remaining part.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has made out a case for the grant of stay of execution pending appeal.

Orders

  • Application allowed in favour of the applicant with conditions set therein.
  • The applicant to deposit half the taxed costs in the court account within 30 days from delivery of this ruling.
  • The applicant to furnish proof of deposit to the Deputy Registrar of the High Court as a precondition to allowing this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
For a court to grant an application for stay of execution pending appeal, the applicant must establish: (1) that the appeal has a likelihood of success or a prima facie case of right to appeal; (2) that the applicant will suffer irreparable damage or the appeal will be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted; (3) if conditions 1 and 2 are not established, where the balance of convenience lies; and (4) that the application was instituted without delay.
Stay of Execution — Purpose
The purpose of an application for stay of execution pending appeal is to preserve the subject matter in dispute so that the rights of the appellant who is exercising the undoubted right of appeal are safeguarded and the appeal, if successful, is not rendered nugatory.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
Substantial loss does not represent any particular amount or size and cannot be quantified by any particular mathematical formula. It refers to any loss, great or small, of real worth or value as distinguished from loss that is merely nominal. The court must assess whether substantial loss will result based on the particular facts of each case.
Stay of Execution — Security for Costs — Discretion
The provision of security for due performance of a decree is a condition for stay of execution, but the court has discretion to dispense with security or modify the requirement. The decision whether to order security must be made in consonance with the probability of success of the appeal and should not be used to fetter the right of appeal. The court may impose conditions, including requiring the applicant to deposit part of the taxed costs.
Stay of Execution — Delay
An application for stay of execution pending appeal should be made without unreasonable delay. However, where a judgment debtor applies for stay soon after learning of imminent execution proceedings, this may constitute sufficient promptness notwithstanding the lapse of time since judgment was delivered.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (23)

  • Rwashande Yosam & 9 Others v Kayivwa Vincent (HCT-15-EXD-EMA-0013 of 2020)
  • Global Capital Save 2004 Ltd & Another v Alice Okiror & Another (HCMA No. 485 of 2012)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (SCCA No. 18 of 1990)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v The Attorney General & Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Hansa Industries Ltd v Tadjir Hussein & 2 Others (SCCA No. 19 of 2018)
  • Nalwanga v Eden Ltd & Others (MA No. 7 of 2017)
  • Mugene v Akankwasa [2008] HCB 160
  • Membe v Mayoga [2009] HCB 82
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda v Atyaba Agencies (SCCA No. 31 of 2004)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda v East African Law Society & Another (EACJ Application No. 1 of 2013)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd & 2 Others v International Credit Bank Limited (in Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tadjaudin Hussein & Others (SCCA No. 79 of 2008)
  • Steel Rolling Mills Ltd & Anor vs Gestation Economique Des Mission Catholic & Anor
  • Pan African Insurance Company (U) Ltd v International Air Transport (HCT MA No. 86 of 2006)
  • Bashidar v Pribku Dyal Air 41 1954
  • Sewankambo Dickson v Ziwa Abby (HCMA No. 178 of 2005)
  • Ujagar Singh vs Runda Coffee Estates Ltd
  • New Vision Publishing Corporation & 2 Others v Peter Kagawa (HCMA No. 127 of 2006)
  • Ntege Mayambala v Christopher Mwanje (1993) KALR 97
  • International Credit Bank (In Liquidation) v Tropical Commodities Ltd & 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2004)
  • Amuanaun Sam v Opolot David (MA No. 3 of 2014)
  • Musiitwa v Eunice Busingye (SCCA No. 18 of 1990)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kirunda v Narendra & Another (HCT-03-CV-MA 52 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 952 (5 September 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.