Wakilii

Kokop v Kapere & 2 Others (Civil Appeal 31 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 1075 · 2024 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court order granting stay of execution
Decision
Stay of execution maintained subject to payment of security for costs of UGX 20,000,000

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 High Court partially allowed the appeal, holding that while the Chief Magistrate correctly granted a stay of execution pending appeal, the order should have been made conditional upon payment of security for costs. The court distinguished the consent settlement relating to costs in the High Court appeal from the execution of substantive orders in the underlying land suit, and affirmed that the executing court had jurisdiction to grant the stay.

Outcome

Stay of execution maintained subject to payment of security for costs of UGX 20,000,000

Facts

The appellant was successful in Civil Suit No. 0002 of 2019 concerning land ownership and obtained orders for vacant possession, injunction, and damages. The respondents appealed to the High Court (Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2022), which upheld the trial court's decision except for mesne profits. The respondents then appealed to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 1111 of 2023) and applied for stay of execution before the Chief Magistrate's Court. The Chief Magistrate granted the stay. Meanwhile, a consent settlement was entered in the High Court concerning costs from the earlier appeal. The appellant challenged the stay order, arguing the consent settlement covered execution generally and that the respondents' affidavit was defective.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned trial magistrate erred in failing to evaluate the record and reached an absurd decision in granting stay of execution
  2. Whether the learned trial magistrate erred in relying on the respondents' defective and inadmissible affidavit to determine the application
  3. Whether the learned trial magistrate erred in disclosing execution at the Magistrate's Court while execution by consent was ongoing at the High Court over the same matter

Orders

  • The decision of the trial court in Misc. Application No. 59 of 2023 is maintained subject to payment of security for costs of UGX 20,000,000
  • The costs of this appeal shall abide the results in Civil Appeal No. 1111 of 2023
  • Appeal partially succeeds

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Costs — Mandatory Condition
Where a court grants a stay of execution pending appeal, it must impose a condition requiring the applicant to provide security for the due performance of the decree, including costs, where the applicant was the unsuccessful party in the courts below.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Jurisdiction — Executing Court
Under Order 22 rule 23(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, an application for stay of execution may be made either to the executing court or to a court with appellate jurisdiction in respect of the decree. The executing court has jurisdiction to grant a stay pending appeal.
Civil Procedure — Consent Orders — Interpretation and Scope
A consent settlement relating to payment of costs from an appellate proceeding does not affect or supersede the substantive orders in the underlying suit, and execution may proceed in respect of the substantive orders where the consent is limited to costs only.
Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Hearsay — Interlocutory Applications
Under Order 19 rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, on interlocutory applications, statements of belief may be admitted in affidavits provided the grounds thereof are stated. Where a deponent states the source of information not within his personal knowledge, the affidavit is not rendered inadmissible for hearsay.
Civil Procedure — Electronic Filing — Draft Numbers and Case Registration
Under the Electronic Court Case Management System, a case may initially be assigned a draft number for tracking purposes. The assignment of a draft number rather than a final case number does not invalidate the filing where the court has stamped and endorsed the received documents.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

  • Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Besigye Kiiza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta and Another (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Rutaku Franies and 5 Others v Eliphas Ndomagye (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 1117 of 2017)
  • Saggu v Road Master Cycle (U) Ltd (2002) EA 258

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kokop v Kapere & 2 Others (Civil Appeal 31 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1075 (25 November 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.