Mangeni Dismus Wejuli v Magero Alfred and Others (Civil Application No. 051 of 2025)

Observed later treatment

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 applicant sought a stay of execution of the High Court judgment dismissing his land appeal, pending a second appeal to the Court of Appeal. Applying the principles in Ssekikubo v Attorney General, the single Justice held the conditions were met: the intended appeal was not frivolous and raised serious questions on ownership and evaluation of evidence; execution (felling trees, fencing, possible alienation) would render the appeal nugatory and cause irreparable loss; the application was made without delay; and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo. The Court granted the stay and an injunction restraining further interference, and dispensed with security for due performance given the respondents' ongoing harvesting of the applicant's trees.

Outcome

Stay of execution and injunction granted pending determination of the appeal; security for due performance dispensed with

Facts

The applicant and the 1st respondent each purchased adjoining parcels of land from the 3rd respondent in 1996, the land being situated in Bumirambako village, Buyanga subcounty, Busia District, with a footpath running along their common boundary. The applicant alleged the 1st respondent, assisted by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, encroached on part of his land and began cutting down trees he had planted. The applicant sued in the Chief Magistrate's Court at Busia (Civil Suit No. 14 of 2017), seeking declarations of trespass and eviction; the suit was dismissed with costs in August 2022. His appeal to the High Court at Tororo (Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2022) was dismissed in November 2023. He filed a second appeal (Civil Appeal No. 1506 of 2023) and an application to adduce additional evidence (Civil Application No. 0014 of 2025), both pending. A prior stay application at the High Court (Misc. Application No. 57 of 2024) was dismissed. The respondents were fencing the land and felling the applicant's eucalyptus trees.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of a stay of execution pending the determination of his appeal.

Orders

• A stay of execution of the judgment and orders of the High Court in Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2022 (arising from Civil Suit No. 14 of 2017) is granted, pending the hearing and determination of Civil Appeal No. 1506 of 2023 and Civil Application No. 0014 of 2025.
• An order of injunction issues restraining the Respondents, their agents, servants or anyone acting under their authority from further fencing, alienating, selling, leasing or otherwise interfering with the suit land; from cutting down or removing any eucalyptus or other trees on the suit land; and from bringing new persons onto the land or otherwise changing its character, until final determination of the pending appeal and application.
• The Applicant shall not deposit any security for due performance of the decrees of the lower courts.
• The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of Civil Appeal No. 1506 of 2023.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 Rule 2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 Rule 6(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 Rule 42
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 Rule 43
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 Rule 46
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 Rule 47
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 Rule 76

Cases cited (4)

• Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and 3 Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2013)
• Mohammed Abulrahman v Barclays Bank of Uganda Ltd (Civil Application No. 22 of 1992)
• Uganda Revenue Authority v Stephen Mabosi (1996) HCB 122
• Joseph Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd [1990-91] KALR 47

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.

• Fred Mushabe and Others v Kajumba Proscovia (HCT-01-LD-MA-0016-2026)

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