Kitende Kalibogha & 2 Ors v Eleonora Wisemire (Civil Application 6 of 2010)

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

For an interim order of stay of execution to issue, the applicant must show by affidavit evidence that a substantive application for stay is pending and that there is a serious threat of execution before that application is heard. Here the supporting affidavit contained no averment of a pending substantive application for stay — a fatal omission that could not be cured by counsel's statement from the bar. Although the court found that execution of the High Court orders had not in fact been completed, the absence of evidence of a pending substantive application meant the application could not succeed. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Application for an interim order of stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicants lost High Court Civil Suit No. 49 of 2007 at Fort Portal, where judgment was entered for the respondent: the first and second applicants were ordered to pay Shs. 307 million in special and general damages, the third applicant was to be struck off the Register of Companies, and land at Plot No. 3 Rubaga Road and in Kasese District was decreed to the respondent. Warrants for vacant possession and for the arrest of the first and second applicants were issued. The applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal, where their application for stay of execution (Civil Application No. 119 of 2009) was dismissed. They then sought an interim stay in the Supreme Court pending a substantive stay application (Civil Application No. 5 of 2010). By the time of the hearing, the first applicant had been arrested and committed to civil prison and the applicants had been evicted from Plot No. 3 Rubaga Road, but the Kasese land had not yet been delivered to the respondent.

Issues

1. Whether the applicants established the conditions for the grant of an interim order for stay of execution, namely the existence of a pending substantive application for stay and a serious threat of execution before its hearing.
2. Whether the execution of the orders of the High Court had been completed so that there was nothing left to stay.

Orders

• Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Rules of the Supreme Court r.2(2)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.6(2)(b)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.41(2)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.42(1) and (2)

Cases cited (1)

• Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tojdin Hussein and Others (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

• Kasolo v Delahaije (Civil Reference 3 of 2023)
• Senkungu v Mukasa (Miscellaneous Application 5 of 2013)
• Akright Projects Ltd v Executive Property Holdings Ltd & 12 Ors [2012] UGSC 4

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