Wakilii

LT. Mbazira and 7 Others v Kalungi (Miscellaneous Application 628 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 259 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of decree pending appeal from High Court Land Division Civil Suit No. 133 of 2011
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Held that while a notice of appeal is a precondition for stay of execution, the 4th applicant's omission from the notice was validated in the interest of justice. However, the application failed because the applicants did not prove an eminent threat of execution. The application was speculative and premature, filed in anticipation of execution rather than in response to actual steps taken by the respondent to execute the decree. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicants sought stay of execution of a decree in HCT-LD-CS-133-2011 pending their intended appeal. In the underlying suit, the respondent was declared the registered owner of land at Kyadondo Block 158B Plot 21, Namunge, Musale. The applicants were declared trespassers and an eviction order issued against them. A permanent injunction was granted restraining them from the suit land and they were jointly and severally ordered to pay UGX 50,000,000 in general damages. The applicants filed a notice of appeal and requested certified proceedings. They claimed the respondent would not hesitate to execute the decree and that their appeal raised serious questions with a high likelihood of success. The respondent opposed, arguing that the 4th applicant lacked locus as she was not listed in the notice of appeal, that the application was speculative as no execution steps had been taken, and that no notice of eviction or warrants had been issued.

Issues

  1. Whether the 4th applicant had locus to depone the affidavit in support of the motion when she was not listed in the notice of appeal.
  2. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules for grant of stay of execution.
  3. Whether there was an eminent threat of execution warranting the grant of stay.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.
  • Miscellaneous Application 629 of 2022 dismissed as overtaken by events.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Notice of Appeal — Locus Standi of Party Not Listed
Where a party depones an affidavit in support of an application for stay of execution but is omitted from the notice of appeal, the court may validate the affidavit in the interest of justice where the omission appears to be inadvertent and capable of correction at an appropriate time, notwithstanding the general requirement that only intending appellants may apply for stay.
Stay of Execution — Eminent Threat of Execution — Burden of Proof
An application for stay of execution is premature and speculative where filed in anticipation of execution but with no evidence of actual steps taken by the decree holder to execute, such as an application for execution, notice of eviction, or warrants of arrest or eviction. The applicant must prove an eminent threat of execution, not merely a likelihood or possibility.
Stay of Execution — Conditions Under Order 43 Rule 4(3) CPR
For an application for stay of execution to succeed, the applicant must satisfy cumulative conditions including: filing a notice of appeal, showing that substantial loss may result unless stay is granted, bringing the application without unreasonable delay, offering security for due performance, proving an eminent threat of execution that would render the appeal nugatory, and demonstrating that the intended appeal is not frivolous and has a likelihood of success.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

LT._Mbazira_and_7_Others_v_Kalungi_(Miscellaneous_Application_628_of_2022)_[2022]_UGHCLD_259_(13_October_2022)
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.