Wakilii

Marianalikka Mpima v Ernest Sensalire and Others (Civil Misc. Appl. No. 249 99)

High Court · [1999] UGHC 64 · 1999 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution and stay of taxation proceedings pending appeal against dismissal of civil suit
Decision
Application dismissed for failure to satisfy conditions for grant of stay and for seeking stay before execution or taxation had commenced

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

Application for stay of execution and taxation dismissed. Court held that applicants failed to prove any execution proceedings had commenced or that bills of costs had been filed and taxation notices issued. Applicants did not establish substantial loss within meaning of Order 39 rule 4(3), acted without clear evidence of historical or environmental value of the building, and failed to furnish security for costs as required. All three conditions under Order 39 rule 4(3) must be satisfied conjunctively. Court deprecated practice of applications for stay of taxation as unwarranted interference with due process.

Outcome

Application dismissed for failure to satisfy conditions for grant of stay and for seeking stay before execution or taxation had commenced

Facts

Applicants sought stay of execution and stay of taxation of respondents' bill of costs pending appeal against a High Court judgment of 15 January 1999 dismissing their civil suit. The dismissed suit concerned land comprised in Kibuga Block 7 Plot No. 89. The court had ordered the fifth respondent (registered proprietor) to pay applicants UGX 4,000,000 as compensation for structures on the land. Applicants filed notice of appeal on 21 January 1999 and applied for certified record of proceedings on 19 January 1999. They claimed their late father's commercial building erected in 1950 had historical and environmental value requiring preservation. Fifth respondent opposed the application, stating he was willing to pay compensation after taxation of his costs and intended to erect a modern commercial building on the land.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should grant a stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. Whether the court should stay taxation proceedings pending appeal.
  3. Whether the applicants satisfied the three conditions under Order 39 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules for grant of stay of execution.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions under Order 39 rule 4(3) — Conjunctive Nature of Requirements
All three conditions under Order 39 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules must be satisfied for grant of stay of execution: (a) that substantial loss may result unless the order is made; (b) that application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (c) that security has been given for due performance of the decree. The word 'and' is used conjunctively not disjunctively.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Proof Required
To satisfy the condition of substantial loss under Order 39 rule 4(3)(a), an applicant must provide evidence, not mere assertion. Claims of historical or environmental value of a building must be supported by expert evidence such as from a Historical Buildings Conservation Group.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Premature Application — No Execution Commenced
An application for stay of execution is premature and misconceived where no execution proceedings have commenced and no bills of costs have been filed with taxation notices issued.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Taxation — Improper Interference with Court Process
Applications for stay of taxation proceedings amount to unwarranted interference in the court process. A matter is not finally determined until costs have been taxed and certified. A party seeking to appeal while simultaneously blocking taxation of the bill of costs is meddling with due process.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.101
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.39 r.4
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.48 rr.1 & 3
  • Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1995 Rule 5(2)(b)

Cases cited (2)

  • I.M. Kyazze v E. Busingye (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Uganda Bottlers Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Marianalikka Mpima v Ernest Sensalire and Others (Civil Misc. Appl. No. 249_99) [1999] UGHC 64 (24 May 1999)
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.