Kisaalu and 10 Others v Nakiito and Another ( suing through his lawful attorney nakiito) (Miscellaneous Application No. 105 of 2020)
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.
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
The High Court granted a stay of execution of an eviction decree pending appeal to the Court of Appeal, finding that the applicants would suffer substantial loss if evicted from land they use for commercial purposes, that the application was filed without unreasonable delay, and that security for due performance was necessary to protect the respondents' rights as successful judgment creditors. The court ordered the applicants to deposit a bank guarantee of UGX 20,000,000 within 14 days as security for due performance.
Outcome
Stay of execution granted conditional upon deposit of security for due performance
Facts
The applicants were defendants in Civil Suit No. 49 of 2016 which resulted in an eviction order. They lost their appeal in Civil Appeal No. 0052 of 2018, with judgment delivered on 15 July 2020. The applicants filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal on 20 July 2020 and this application for stay of execution on 18 August 2020. The applicants claimed they use the suit land for commercial purposes with kiosks as their source of livelihood and would suffer irreparable loss if evicted. The respondents opposed the application, denying they had threatened execution, and argued the applicants had not met the conditions for stay and were using the appeal as a delaying tactic. The respondents requested security of at least UGX 50,000,000 if the stay was granted.
Issues
- Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for a stay of execution pending appeal.
- Whether the applicants would suffer substantial loss if the stay is not granted.
- Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay.
- Whether security for due performance should be ordered and in what amount.
Orders
- Application allowed.
- Stay of execution of the decree in Civil Appeal No. 0052 of 2018 granted pending determination of the appeal in the Court of Appeal.
- Applicants to deposit a bank guarantee of UGX 20,000,000 in court within 14 days from the date of this order.
- Failure to deposit security within 14 days, the Respondents at liberty to proceed with execution of the judgment.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
Cases cited (3)
- Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd and others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
- Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
- DFCU Bank Ltd v Dr. Ann Persis Nakate Lussejere (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2003)
Cases citing this judgment (5)
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.
- Mugisha v Katenta (HCT-01-LD-MA-0150-2025)
- Uganda Railways Corporation v Ponziano Nyeko (Miscellaneous Application 1841 of 2024)
- Lukoba v Kigongo (Miscellaneous Application 51 of 2024)
- Katsinde and Another v Rubarekyera and Others (Miscellaneous Application 41 of 2024)
- Kironde v Bank of Africa Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 795 of 2024)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.