Wakilii

Lubega v Nassimbwa (Civil Application 122 of 2024)

Court of Appeal · [2024] UGCA 219 · 2024 Application Declined AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for a stay of execution of a decree pending the determination of a civil appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution declined; costs to abide the outcome of the appeal

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. 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

A single Justice of the Court of Appeal declined an application for a stay of execution of a monetary decree (UGX 14,115,000) pending appeal. Although a notice of appeal had been lodged and the appeal was not vexatious, the applicant failed to demonstrate that he would suffer irreparable damage. The decree was monetary and not, as the applicant alleged, concerned with his family home; satisfaction of a money decree does not ordinarily render an appeal nugatory where restitution is available against a solvent respondent. The applicant had neither deposited nor offered security for due performance, and the balance of convenience tilted toward the respondent. The application was declined, with costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution declined; costs to abide the outcome of the appeal

Facts

The applicant and respondent executed a land sale agreement. Following litigation in Civil Suit No. 42 of 2020, judgment was entered against the applicant, ordering him to pay UGX 14,115,000 inclusive of interest and costs. The applicant filed a notice and memorandum of appeal (Civil Appeal No. 118 of 2022) challenging the award of general damages and the finding of breach of contract. The respondent applied for execution, including attachment of property. The applicant had earlier been committed to civil imprisonment at Luzira for six months in partial satisfaction of the decree. He brought this second application for a stay of execution, contending that execution would render his appeal nugatory and cause his family undue hardship, asserting the suit property was the family home. The respondent opposed the application as frivolous and an abuse of process, noting the decree was monetary, not a decree concerning land.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established that his intended appeal has a likelihood of success or a prima facie case of his right to appeal.
  2. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable damage, or whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory, if a stay of execution of the monetary decree were not granted.
  3. Whether the second application for a stay of execution was instituted within a reasonable time.

Orders

  • The application is hereby declined.
  • Costs shall abide by the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution Pending Appeal — Governing Conditions
Institution of an appeal does not of itself operate as a stay of execution; an applicant for a stay pending appeal must establish a likelihood of success or prima facie right of appeal, that irreparable damage will result or the appeal be rendered nugatory if a stay is refused, and that the application was instituted without delay; where the first two are not made out the court considers where the balance of convenience lies.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Monetary Decrees and Nugatory Appeals
Satisfaction of a money decree does not ordinarily render a pending appeal nugatory where the respondent is not impecunious, because the remedy of restitution is available should the appeal succeed; a stay will be refused unless the applicant shows the payment would be irreversible or that damages would not reasonably compensate.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance
A requirement for the grant of a stay of execution is the deposit of security for due performance; an applicant who has neither deposited nor indicated willingness to deposit such security fails to satisfy a condition for the grant of a stay.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.42
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.43
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.46
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.47
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.76

Cases cited (14)

  • [1990] UGSC 13
  • Dr. William Shija v Fortunatus Masha, Civil Application No. 1 of 2002
  • [2013] UGSC 1
  • [2020] TZCA 1843
  • Clara Kimoka v Surumbu Lyeso [2002] TLR 255
  • [2003] TZCA 16
  • [2014] UGCA 17
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 342 of 2013)
  • [2015] UGSC 7
  • Nakato Sarah and Anor v James Busonga (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 303 of 2023)
  • Twongyeirwe Peter v Muhumuza Peter (Miscellaneous Application No. 0681 of 2021)
  • National Enterprises Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 1998)
  • [2013] UGSC 21
  • [2023] UGCA 153

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Lubega v Nassimbwa (Civil Application 122 of 2024) [2024] UGCA 219 (21 August 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.