Wakilii

Knox Bamwine v Anywar Walter [2026] UGHCLD 46

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of a High Court appellate judgment pending determination of an appeal to the Court of Appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs; the High Court decree remains enforceable pending the Court of Appeal appeal

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

The court dismissed an application for stay of execution of a High Court appellate decree ordering specific performance, demolition of buildings and surrender of land. Although the applicant had lodged a notice of appeal, taken steps to obtain the record and applied without unreasonable delay, he failed to prove substantial loss by evidence, failed to establish an imminent threat of execution, and did not provide or propose security for due performance as required by Order 43 rule 4(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules. An earlier deposit made in the Execution Division related to the magistrate's court decree and could not serve as security for the fresh appeal. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent, who had been denied the fruits of judgment for years.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs; the High Court decree remains enforceable pending the Court of Appeal appeal

Facts

In 2007 the respondent sued the applicant in the Chief Magistrate's Court (Civil Suit No. 168 of 2007) seeking specific performance of a 2005 agreement for the sale of land measuring 56ft x 14ft at Mutungo Zone 6 and provision of an access road. Judgment was entered for the respondent in January 2012, requiring the applicant to allow an access road and the respondent to pay the balance of the purchase price, which he paid into court (UGX 1,750,000) in August 2017. Costs were taxed at UGX 13,944,060. The applicant appealed to the High Court (Civil Appeal No. 2255 of 2016), and on 16 January 2025 the High Court substituted orders granting specific performance, directing the applicant to demolish buildings on the land within 14 days and to surrender the land, failing which he would be evicted. The applicant lodged a notice of appeal on 24 January 2025 and Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2025, requested the record of proceedings, and on 27 February 2025 applied for a stay of execution, alleging substantial loss, self-executing orders, and prior security deposited in the Execution Division.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the legal requirements for the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal to the Court of Appeal.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution Pending Appeal — Cumulative Conditions under Order 43 rule 4(3)
A stay of execution pending appeal is granted only where the applicant shows a lodged notice of appeal with steps taken to prosecute it, substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay and security for the due performance of the decree; failure on any of these conditions defeats the application.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss Must Be Proved by Evidence
Substantial loss for purposes of a stay of execution must be actual loss over and above the ordinary consequences of litigation and must be established by evidence; bare averments in an affidavit that the applicant will suffer substantial loss are insufficient.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success Where Memorandum of Appeal Not Yet Filed
On an application for stay of execution the court does not determine the merits of the intended appeal but asks whether there is a bona fide intention to appeal and whether the grounds are not frivolous; the absence of a memorandum of appeal, where the record of proceedings has not been supplied, is not fatal because Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules governs appeals to the High Court and not to the Court of Appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance is Mandatory
Security for due performance under Order 43 rule 4(3)(c) is a mandatory requirement intended to protect the respondent, and it suffices that the applicant is willing to give security for costs in an amount determined by the circumstances; a deposit made earlier in respect of a different decree cannot serve as security for a subsequent appeal, and an applicant who neither deposits nor proposes any security fails this condition.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Balance of Convenience and Threat of Execution
The power to grant a stay is discretionary and equitable, aimed at temporarily preserving the status quo; where the decree holder has been kept from the fruits of judgment for years and no eviction notice or step towards execution has been taken, the balance of convenience favours refusing the stay.
Land & Property — Enforcement of Specific Performance Orders — Demolition and Eviction Directions
Where a High Court decree requires a party to demolish structures and surrender land under a sale agreement, failing which he will be evicted under the Constitution (Land Evictions) (Practice) Directions, 2021, a party seeking to avoid enforcement cannot rely on the presence of unnamed third-party purchasers or on the self-executing character of the orders without evidence.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (10)

  • Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd and 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (Miscellaneous Application No. 379 of 2003)
  • Mabu Commodities Ltd v Nakitende (Miscellaneous Application No. 530 of 2020)
  • Pan African Insurance Co (U) Ltd v International Air Transport Association (Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2006)
  • National Enterprise Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Civil Application No. 7 of 1998)
  • Sengendo v Busulwa and Another (Civil Application No. 207 of 2014)
  • Musaazi v Nakatoligo and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 33 of 2025)
  • Walusimbi v Musenze (Miscellaneous Application No. 232 of 2018)
  • Sewankambo v Zziwa (Miscellaneous Application No. 78 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Knox Bamwine v Anywar Walter [2026] UGHCLD 46 (27 February 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.