Wakilii

Malavu William v Karabayo Maria Monica [2026] UGHCLD 56

High Court · 2026 Application Granted (Conditional Stay) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by chamber summons for stay of execution of a High Court judgment and decree pending determination of a miscellaneous appeal
Decision
Conditional stay of execution granted restraining eviction of the applicant pending determination of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 0661 of 2025, subject to deposit of UGX 15,000,000 as security within 30 days

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 court restated that a stay of execution pending appeal requires a notice of appeal and steps to prosecute it, proof of substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and security for due performance of the decree. Substantial loss must be established by evidence, not mere assertion, and the applicant failed to do so; the balance of convenience also favoured the respondent. Execution already completed — cancellation of the applicant's registration on the title — could not be stayed, since a stay only suspends performance of orders not yet executed. Because an imminent threat of eviction was proved and the orders on possession, damages, mesne profits and costs remained unexecuted, a conditional stay was granted on deposit of UGX 15,000,000 as security.

Outcome

Conditional stay of execution granted restraining eviction of the applicant pending determination of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 0661 of 2025, subject to deposit of UGX 15,000,000 as security within 30 days

Facts

The applicant was registered as proprietor of land at Kyadondo Block 229 Plot 1190 in August 2005 after purchasing it through a court-ordered attachment and sale. In Civil Suit No. 1002 of 2020 the respondent successfully challenged that sale and registration; on 19 September 2024 the court found Rosemary Eleanor Karamagi (deceased) to be the lawful owner and ordered cancellation of the applicant's registration. On 4 October 2024 the Commissioner Land Registration cancelled the applicant's name and registered the deceased as proprietor. The applicant's application for review (HCMA No. 006 of 2024) was dismissed on 2 May 2025; leave to appeal was granted on 29 August 2025 and a notice of appeal filed on 11 September 2025. A letter dated 10 September 2025, which the applicant treated as a notice of eviction, was issued, and the present application was filed on 17 September 2025. The respondent asserted that the decree had already been executed, that she had taken possession and let the premises to a tenant, and that the applicant could be compensated in damages. The court found the tenancy agreement unsigned and held the applicant remained in physical possession, while the orders on possession, damages, mesne profits and costs remained unexecuted.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had shown sufficient grounds for an order staying execution of the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 1002 of 2020 pending appeal.
  2. Whether a decree that has already been partly executed by cancellation of the certificate of title can be stayed.
  3. What remedies were available to the parties.

Orders

  • An order for stay of execution of the order in Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 2024 and the decree in Civil Suit No. 1002 of 2020 is issued, staying the eviction of the applicant from the suit property comprised in Kyadondo, Plot 1190 Block 229, pending the hearing and final determination of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 0661 of 2025.
  • The applicant shall deposit UGX 15,000,000 as security for due performance of the decree in court within 30 days of the ruling.
  • Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution Pending Appeal — Statutory and Judicial Prerequisites
An order staying execution pending appeal may be granted only where the applicant has lodged a notice of appeal and taken steps to prosecute it, shows that substantial loss may result unless the order is made, has applied without unreasonable delay, and has given security for the due performance of the decree, with the court also weighing imminent threat of execution, the prospects of the appeal and comparative hardship.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Standard of Proof
Substantial loss for the purposes of a stay of execution means actual loss, great or small, as distinct from nominal damage, and must be established by evidence rather than by bare assertions in an affidavit that the applicant will suffer loss if execution proceeds.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Effect of Partial Execution of a Decree
A stay of execution presupposes that execution has not yet been carried out; it does not reverse, annul or undo what has already been done, so where part of a decree such as cancellation of a certificate of title has already been implemented, a stay can operate only on the orders that remain unexecuted.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance of the Decree
The requirement in Order 43 rule 4(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules that security be given for the due performance of the decree is couched in mandatory terms, and while courts do not encourage stifling appeals, a stay may properly be granted on condition that the applicant deposits a specified sum as security.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Balance of Convenience and Preservation of the Status Quo
The power to grant a stay of execution is discretionary and must be exercised equitably with a view to temporarily preserving the status quo, and a stay is generally justified where the applicant shows that once the decretal property is disposed of there is no likelihood of recovering it should the appeal succeed.
Land & Property — Cancellation of Registration Pursuant to Decree — Possession Pending Appeal
Where a decree ordering cancellation of a registered proprietor's title has been implemented by the Commissioner Land Registration but the losing party remains in physical possession, the court may stay the eviction component of the decree pending appeal while leaving the completed cancellation undisturbed.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (10)

  • Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd and 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (Miscellaneous Application No. 379 of 2003)
  • Mabu Commodities Ltd v Nakitende (Miscellaneous Application No. 530 of 2020)
  • National Enterprise Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Civil Application No. 7 of 1998)
  • Sengendo v Busulwa and Another (Civil Application No. 207 of 2014)
  • Kiyaga Edward v Namakula (Civil Application No. 293 of 2023)
  • Global Capital Save 2004 Ltd and Another v Okiror and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 485 of 2012)
  • Angolinga Mahmood Salim v Karamagi Rosemary Eleanor (Civil Suit No. 1018 of 2004)
  • Karabayo Maria Monica v Malavu William and Another (Civil Suit No. 1002 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Malavu William v Karabayo Maria Monica [2026] UGHCLD 56 (24 March 2026)
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.