Wakilii

Malavu William v Karabyo Maria Monica [2026] UGHCLD 59

High Court · 2026 Application Partly Allowed — Conditional Stay Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by summons in chambers 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

On an application to stay execution of a decree cancelling the applicant's title and ordering vacant possession, the court held that substantial loss must be established by evidence and not by mere assertion, and that a stay cannot operate on portions of a decree already executed — here the cancellation of the certificate of title. Although substantial loss was not proved and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent, an imminent threat of eviction existed and the requirements of notice of appeal and no unreasonable delay were satisfied. Because security for due performance under Order 43 rule 4(3)(c) is mandatory, a conditional stay of the eviction was granted on deposit of UGX 15,000,000.

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 on the certificate of title for land at Kyadondo Block 229 Plot 1190 on 18 August 2005, having purchased it through attachment and sale under a court order arising from a consent judgment in HCCS No. 1018 of 2004. The respondent, daughter and administrator of the estate of Rosemary Eleanor Karamagi, sued in HCCS No. 1002 of 2020. On 19 September 2024 the court found the deceased to be the lawful owner, held the applicant's registration fraudulent, and ordered cancellation of his registration. The Commissioner Land Registration cancelled the applicant's name on 4 October 2024 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. On 10 September 2025 a letter described as an eviction notice was issued, and the applicant filed this application on 17 September 2025. The respondent relied on a tenancy agreement dated 6 November 2024 to assert possession; the court found the agreement unsigned by the purported landlord and held the applicant remained in physical possession of the suit property.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant showed sufficient grounds for a stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. Whether a stay can issue in respect of parts of a decree that have already been executed.
  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 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 — Conditions under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules
A stay of execution pending appeal requires the applicant to show a lodged notice of appeal and steps taken to prosecute it, substantial loss if the stay is refused, absence of unreasonable delay, and the provision of security for due performance of the decree, supplemented by considerations of imminent threat of execution, the merits of the appeal and comparative hardship.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Standard of Proof
Substantial loss for purposes of a stay of execution means actual loss, whether great or small, assessed on the particular facts of each case, and it must be established by evidence rather than by mere assertions in an affidavit.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Decree Already Partly Executed
A stay of execution presupposes that execution has not been undertaken; it does not reverse, annul or undo what has already been done, and can operate only on those parts of the decree that remain unexecuted.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Mandatory Requirement
The requirement under 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, so that where other grounds are only partly satisfied the court may grant a stay conditional upon the deposit of security.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Balance of Convenience and Judicial Discretion
The power to grant a stay of execution is discretionary and must be exercised equitably to temporarily preserve the status quo, and 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 — Effect of Executed Decree on Interim Relief
Where a decree ordering cancellation of a registered proprietor's name has already been implemented by the Commissioner Land Registration, there is nothing left to stay in respect of the title, and the only relief that remains available pending appeal concerns physical possession and unexecuted monetary awards.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (8)

  • Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Ndiege (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous 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 (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 1998)
  • Sengendo v Busulwa and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 207 of 2014)
  • Kiyaga Edward v Namakula (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 293 of 2023)
  • Global Capital Save 2004 Ltd and Another v Okiror and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 485 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Malavu William v Karabyo Maria Monica [2026] UGHCLD 59 (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.