Wakilii

Kyaligonza v Mugabe and Others (MISC. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 07 OF 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 238 · 2025 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Assistant Registrar's order staying execution of a High Court decree
Decision
Assistant Registrar's ruling and orders set aside as null and void for lack of jurisdiction

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 held that an Assistant Registrar lacked jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution of a decree passed by a judge. Such applications must be heard by the judge who decided the case. The Registrar's powers under Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules are limited to interlocutory matters and do not extend to main applications for stay of execution of judicial decrees. The Assistant Registrar's ruling was set aside as a nullity.

Outcome

Assistant Registrar's ruling and orders set aside as null and void for lack of jurisdiction

Facts

Kyaligonza Steven obtained a decree in HCCS No. 28 of 2009. The respondents filed Misc. Application No. 53 of 2020 seeking a stay of execution pending appeal. The Assistant Registrar granted the stay order on 15 March 2022. Kyaligonza appealed, arguing the Assistant Registrar lacked jurisdiction to stay execution of a decree passed by a judge. The respondents had filed a Notice of Appeal on 3 July 2020 against the judgment delivered on 22 May 2020, but had not filed a memorandum of appeal within the required timeframe. The certified record of proceedings was ready for collection by 2 November 2020 but was never collected by the respondents.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application was served out of time.
  2. Whether the learned Assistant Registrar erred in law and fact in entertaining an application for and allowing a stay of execution of a decree and/or judgment passed by a judge.
  3. Whether there is a pending appeal against the decision in HCCS No.28 of 2009 before the Court of Appeal.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Appeal is allowed.
  • The Ruling and Orders made in Misc. Application No. 53 of 2020 by the Assistant Registrar staying execution of the decree in HCCS No. 28 of 2009 are set aside.
  • No order as to costs since a litigant cannot be condemned because of errors made by court.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction of Registrars — Stay of Execution — Limitation of Powers
An Assistant Registrar of the High Court lacks jurisdiction to grant a main application for stay of execution of a decree passed by a judge. Under Order 43 rule 4(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court which passed the decree must hear the stay application. The powers of Registrars under Order 50 rules 3 and 4 are limited to formal steps preliminary to trial, interlocutory orders, and formal orders for execution of decrees, and do not extend to hearing main applications for stay of execution of judicial decrees.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Proper Forum — Judge Who Decided Case
An application for a stay of execution should be made to the judge who decided the case when judgment is delivered. A ruling and order issued by an Assistant Registrar staying execution of a decree passed by a judge is null and void for being issued by a tribunal without jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Notice of Appeal — Time Limits
Under Rule 76(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, a Notice of Appeal must be lodged in the High Court within 14 days after the date of the decision against which it is desired to appeal. A Notice of Appeal filed 42 days after the decision is incompetent for being filed out of time.
Civil Procedure — Service — Burden of Proof — Time Limits
The burden is on a party who asserts that an application was served out of time to prove such assertion. Where there is no evidence of when service was effected, the court cannot determine whether service was outside the prescribed period. The timelines that apply to service of summons in an ordinary plaint also apply to the service of applications.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Errors of Court — No Costs Against Litigant
A litigant cannot be condemned to pay costs because of errors made by the court. Where a court officer acts without jurisdiction through error, the successful party may not be awarded costs against the litigant who relied on that officer's order.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.50 r.8
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.4(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.50 r.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.50 r.4
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.5 r.1(2)
  • Evidence Act s.101
  • Evidence Act s.102
  • Evidence Act s.103
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I No.13-10 Rule 76(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I No.13-10 Rule 83(1)

Cases cited (6)

  • Kahunde v Atuhaire (HCMA No. 23 of 2022)
  • Timber & General Stores Ltd and Another v Ismail Mugoda (HCCA No. 133 of 2009)
  • Burundi Tobacco Co. and Another v B.A.T (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Ref. 22 of 2010)
  • Mohamed Kalisa v Gladys Nyangire Karumu (CA Civil Ref. No. 166 of 2013)
  • Attorney General and Another v James Mark Kamoga and Another (SCCA No. 8 of 2004)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (SCCA No. 18 of 1990)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kyaligonza v Mugabe and Others (MISC. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 07 OF 2022) [2025] UGHC 238 (3 January 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.