Male v Nsubuga and Another (Miscellaneous Application 915 of 2023)

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.

Holding

The High Court granted the application for stay of execution of its decree pending appeal. The court found that the applicant had lodged a competent appeal, that there was serious and eminent threat of execution rendering the appeal nugatory given ongoing transfers of the suit land by estate administrators, and that the application was filed without unreasonable delay. The court ordered the applicant to pay security for costs of UGX 2,300,000 within 30 days and prohibited further transfers of the land pending the appeal.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted pending appeal; applicant ordered to furnish security for costs; further transfers of suit land prohibited

Facts

The applicant was the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 240 of 2008 concerning land comprised in Busiro Block 374 plots 448 and 340. On 31 May 2022, the High Court delivered judgment ordering that the 2nd respondent's purchase of the land was lawful. The applicant lodged an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 198 of 2023) on 20 June 2022. The respondents contended that the suit land had since been transferred to the administrators of the estate of the late Erinesti Nsubuga, who had taken possession, subdivided the land, and sold portions to third parties. The administrators paid the applicant UGX 6,600,000 in settlement of a debt as ordered by the court, which the applicant claimed to have refunded on 10 May 2023. The applicant filed this application seeking stay of execution, alleging ongoing transfers threatened to render the appeal nugatory.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for grant of a stay of execution pending appeal.
2. Whether substantial loss would result to the applicant if the stay of execution is not granted.
3. Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay.
4. Whether the applicant provided or is willing to provide security for due performance of the decree.

Orders

• Application for stay of execution allowed.
• Applicant to pay security for costs of UGX 2,300,000 within 30 days from date of ruling.
• No further transfers of the land subject of the pending appeal to be made by the respondents or their agents until court orders otherwise.
• Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Judicature Act Cap.13 s.33
• Judicature Act Cap.13 s.38
• Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.64(e)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 22 rule 23(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 43 rule 4(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 43 rule 4(3)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 rule 2

Cases cited (7)

• Ujagar Singh v Runda Coffee Estates Ltd [1966] 1 EA 263
• Francis M. Micah v Nuwa Waloklra (1992-93) HCB 88
• Laurence Irusitutq Kgqzze v Eunice Businge (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 14 of 1990)
• Hon Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
• Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
• P.K Sengendo v Susutura Lawrence and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 207 of 2014)
• Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal No. 347 of 2013)

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