Wakilii

Koojo and Another v Rwema and Another (HCT-01-LD-MA-0109-2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 544 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of High Court decree pending intended appeal to Court of Appeal
Decision
Application dismissed; execution of decree in HCT-01-CV-CA-0044 of 2023 to proceed

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 dismissed an application for stay of execution pending appeal where the applicants failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on appeal, did not show irreparable damage that could not be compensated by damages, and delayed three months after receiving eviction notice before applying for the stay. The balance of convenience favoured the respondents who had been deprived of their land for over 15 years and held a valid High Court judgment declaring the applicants trespassers.

Outcome

Application dismissed; execution of decree in HCT-01-CV-CA-0044 of 2023 to proceed

Facts

The applicants had won a land case before the Chief Magistrate's Court of Kyenjojo in April 2023. The respondents appealed to the High Court (Civil Appeal No. 044 of 2023), which reversed the decision in October 2024, declaring the suit land part of the estate of the late Rwema Stephen, declaring the applicants trespassers, ordering them to vacate within three months, issuing a permanent injunction, and awarding general damages of UGX 2,000,000. The applicants filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal on 22 October 2024. After receiving an eviction notice, the applicants applied for a stay of execution over three months later, arguing their intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if evicted. The respondents opposed, arguing the application was an abuse of process, filed with inordinate delay, and designed to frustrate them from enjoying their judgment after being deprived of the land for over 15 years.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application raises sufficient grounds for stay of execution of the decree in HCT-01-CV-CA-0044 of 2023.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Inherent Jurisdiction of High Court
The High Court possesses inherent jurisdiction under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to stay its own order pending appeal to the Court of Appeal, in the absence of an express provision in the Civil Procedure Rules, to prevent abuse of process and ensure the ends of justice.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Cumulative Conditions
For a stay of execution pending appeal to be granted, an applicant must cumulatively demonstrate: (i) a likelihood of success in the appeal or a prima facie case of the right to appeal; (ii) that irreparable damage will be suffered or the appeal will be rendered nugatory if a stay is not granted; (iii) where the first two are not established, that the balance of convenience favours the grant; and (iv) that the application was instituted without undue delay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success
It is insufficient for an applicant seeking a stay of execution merely to file a notice of appeal or make a bald assertion that the appeal has high chances of success; the applicant must demonstrate a serious question of law to be tried or that the appeal is not frivolous by presenting a discernible legal or factual basis for the claim.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Irreparable Damage
Irreparable damage does not mean physical impossibility of repair but refers to substantial or material injury that cannot be adequately atoned for by way of damages. Eviction from land does not necessarily constitute irreparable damage if monetary compensation for wrongful eviction or mesne profits could potentially be awarded should the appeal succeed.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Balance of Convenience
Where an applicant fails to demonstrate likelihood of success and irreparable damage, the balance of convenience becomes paramount. The balance tilts towards protecting the rights of a party who has secured a favourable judgment, particularly where that party has endured prolonged deprivation, over the hardship of eviction for a party declared a trespasser by the court.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Delay in Application
An applicant seeking a stay of execution must act expeditiously. A delay of three months from receipt of an eviction notice before applying for a stay constitutes inordinate delay demonstrating lack of diligence and urgency, and weighs significantly against the grant of a stay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Costs
While an offer to furnish security for costs is a common condition in applications for stay of execution, it is a secondary consideration that cannot cure deficiencies in the primary requirements for a stay. A court cannot grant a stay merely because security is offered if the foundational grounds such as likelihood of success or imminent irreparable harm are absent.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (10)

  • Mugenyi & Company Advocates v National Insurance Corporation (SCCA No. 13 of 1984)
  • Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 06 of 2013)
  • National Housing and Construction Corporation v Salume Nabwami (Civil Application No. 10 of 2017)
  • Proline Soccer Academy v Commissioner Land Registration (HCMA 494 of 2018)
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Stephen Kasumba and Another (Civil Application No. 12 of 2019)
  • Uganda National Roads Authority v Irumba Asuman and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 27 of 2015)
  • Attorney General v Uganda National Roads Authority (Civil Application No. 03 of 2015)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (SCCA No. 8 of 1998)
  • Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Rabbo Enterprises (U) Ltd (H.C. Misc. App. No. 11 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Koojo and Another v Rwema and Another (HCT-01-LD-MA-0109-2024) [2025] UGHC 544 (14 July 2025)
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.