Wakilii

Knox Bamwine v Anywar Walter (Chief Magistrates Court Civil Suit No. 168 of 2007; Civil Appeal No. 2255 of 2016 (HCT-00-LD-CA-2255-2016); High Court Nakawa Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 418 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of High Court judgment pending appeal to Court of Appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to respondent

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

Application for stay of execution pending appeal dismissed. The applicant failed to satisfy mandatory requirements under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Although the applicant filed a notice of appeal without unreasonable delay, he failed to demonstrate substantial loss or provide security for due performance of the decree. The applicant gave contradictory evidence about a third party allegedly affected by the orders and failed to prove imminent threat of execution. Balance of convenience favoured the respondent who had been denied access to his property for 19 years.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to respondent

Facts

In 2007, the respondent filed suit for specific performance seeking an access road over land sold to him by the applicant under an agreement dated 20 July 2005. Judgment was entered in the respondent's favour on 16 January 2012 ordering the applicant to provide access. The respondent paid the balance purchase price of UGX 1,750,000 into court on 21 August 2017. His bill of costs was taxed at UGX 13,944,060 on 13 July 2015. The applicant filed High Court Civil Appeal 2255 of 2016 which was dismissed on 16 January 2025, with orders requiring the applicant to demolish buildings on the 56ft x 14ft parcel within 14 days and surrender the land. The applicant then filed Court of Appeal Civil Appeal 76 of 2025 and this application for stay of execution on 27 February 2025. The respondent had been prevented from accessing his property for 19 years since the 2005 sale agreement.

Issues

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

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Mandatory Requirements Under Order 43 Rule 4(3)
For a stay of execution pending appeal to be granted, an applicant must satisfy all four mandatory requirements: (1) filing a notice of appeal and taking steps to prosecute it; (2) demonstrating that substantial loss will result if stay is not granted; (3) bringing the application without unreasonable delay; and (4) providing security for due performance of the decree. Failure to satisfy any one requirement is fatal to the application.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Burden of Proof
Substantial loss for purposes of stay of execution must be proved by evidence and not mere statements. The loss must be actual loss, whether great or small, as opposed to nominal damages, and must be over and above the ordinary loss resulting from litigation. Contradictory averments by an applicant as to who will suffer loss undermine credibility and fail to discharge the burden of proof.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance
Security for due performance is a mandatory requirement under Order 43 rule 4(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Security deposited for performance of a decree in an earlier appeal cannot be relied upon as security for a subsequent appeal to a higher court. The applicant must propose and provide fresh security appropriate to the new appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Balance of Convenience
In exercising discretion to grant a stay of execution, the court must consider the balance of convenience, weighing whether the appeal will be rendered nugatory if execution proceeds against ensuring the successful party is not deprived of the fruits of judgment. Where a successful party has been denied the benefits of a decree for an extended period, the balance of convenience favours allowing execution to proceed.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (10)

  • Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof Isaiah Omollo Ndiege (COAMA 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 Sophie Nakitende (Miscellaneous Application No. 530 of 2020)
  • Pan African Insurance Co (U) Ltd v International Air Transport Association (HCMA No. 86 of 2006)
  • National Enterprise Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 1998)
  • PK Sengende v Busuhya Lwarence and Another (CA Civil Application No. 207 of 2014)
  • Musaazi v Nakatoligo Richard and Another (HCMA No. 0033 of 2025)
  • Walusimbi Mustafa v Musenze Lukia (Miscellaneous Application No. 232 of 2018)
  • Sewankambo Dickson v Zziwa Abby (HCT-00-CC-MA-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_(Chief_Magistrates_Court_Civil_Suit_No._168_of_2007;_Civil_Appeal_No._2255_of_2016_(HCT-00-LD-CA-2255-2016);_High_Court_Nakawa_Civil_Appeal_No._16_of_2
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.