Wakilii

Kwikiriza v Kabatengesa (HCT-01-LD-MA-0110-2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1485 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of High Court decree pending appeal to Court of Appeal
Decision
Stay of execution granted conditional upon deposit of security within 45 days; if security not deposited, stay lapses automatically and execution may 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 granted a stay of execution of a decree ordering eviction and payment of damages, conditional upon the applicant depositing the full decretal monetary sum of UGX 28,424,500 within 45 days. The court held that execution of the eviction order would render the pending appeal nugatory, but the respondent's financial interest must be protected by requiring security for the monetary component of the decree.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted conditional upon deposit of security within 45 days; if security not deposited, stay lapses automatically and execution may proceed

Facts

The respondent obtained judgment in HCT-01-LD-CA-0040 of 2023 on 19 March 2025, setting aside a trial court decision and declaring her the lawful owner of suit land, declaring the applicant a trespasser, ordering eviction and vacant possession, and awarding general damages of UGX 20,000,000 plus costs. The respondent's bill of costs was taxed at UGX 8,424,500. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 20 March 2025 and a substantive appeal (Civil Appeal No. 0302 of 2025) on 30 April 2025. The respondent applied for execution, which was granted on 15 October 2025. The applicant then filed this application for stay of execution on 8 October 2025 after being served with a notice to show cause. The applicant claims to have occupied the land since 1998 and asserts it belongs to the late Augustine Kiiza, father of her children, though she is not a beneficiary of that estate. The respondent contends the applicant has been cultivating and hiring out the land for sugarcane growing since 2017.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to an order for stay of execution of the decree in HCT-01-LD-CA-0040 of 2023 pending the determination of Civil Appeal No. 0302 of 2025.

Orders

  • Stay of execution of the decree in HCT-01-LD-CA-0040 of 2023 granted pending hearing and final determination of Civil Appeal No. 0302 of 2025, subject to condition (2).
  • Applicant to deposit UGX 28,424,500 into court as security for due performance of the decree within 45 days from the date of this ruling.
  • If Applicant fails to comply with condition (2), the order of stay shall automatically lapse without further reference to court, and Respondent shall be at liberty to proceed with execution.
  • Costs of this application to abide the result of Civil Appeal No. 0302 of 2025.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Inherent Powers — High Court staying own decree pending appeal to Court of Appeal
In the absence of an express provision in the Civil Procedure Rules for staying a High Court decision pending appeal to the Court of Appeal, the High Court exercises its inherent powers under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to grant a stay of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Four-part test
For an applicant to be granted a stay of execution, they must satisfy four conditions: (a) that a notice of appeal and/or substantive appeal has been lodged; (b) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; (c) that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made and the appeal would be rendered nugatory; and (d) that security for the due performance of the decree has been furnished or conditions for furnishing it have been set.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Unreasonable Delay — Application filed after notice to show cause
Where an applicant files an application for stay several months after judgment but immediately after being served with a notice to show cause for execution, the application is not made with unreasonable delay, as the law recognizes that an applicant is moved to act when the threat of execution becomes imminent.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Eviction orders rendering appeal nugatory
Execution of an order for eviction and change of possession renders an appeal nugatory, as forceful eviction makes the appeal's successful outcome hollow and leads to a difficult process of seeking re-entry potentially involving further litigation. The court must preserve the status quo until the appeal is heard.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Mandatory requirement to protect decree holder
The requirement to furnish security for due performance of a decree is mandatory and ensures that the decree holder's right to the fruits of their judgment is protected in the event the appeal fails. A court cannot grant an unconditional stay that exposes the respondent to unnecessary risk.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditional stay — Automatic lapse for non-compliance
Where a stay of execution is granted conditional upon deposit of security within a specified time, failure to comply with the condition results in automatic lapse of the stay without further reference to court, and the decree holder is at liberty to proceed with execution.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Hon Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Fort Portal City Council v Mali and 14 Others (HCT-01-CVMA-113-2023)
  • Ssejjemba v Suleiman (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kwikiriza v Kabatengesa (HCT-01-LD-MA-0110-2025) [2025] UGHC 1485 (24 November 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.