Wakilii

Mary Martin v Kakuru Moses and Others (HCT-11-CV-CS-0036-2017; Miscellaneous Application No. 007 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 794 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal to the Court of Appeal arising from Civil Suit No. 36 of 2017
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to respondents. Applicant at liberty to file fresh application for stay in Court of Appeal.

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 of taxed costs pending appeal to Court of Appeal dismissed. Court held that while the applicant filed a notice of appeal without unreasonable delay, the application failed to meet the threshold for exercise of discretion because execution concerned only taxed costs (UGX 29,260,000) which the applicant had not appealed against, no irreparable damage was shown, and no evidence demonstrated the appeal would be rendered nugatory. The court applied the five-prong test from Ssekikubo v Attorney General and found the balance of convenience favoured the judgment creditors who had been out of pocket for nine years. Costs awarded to respondents.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to respondents. Applicant at liberty to file fresh application for stay in Court of Appeal.

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 36 of 2017 which proceeded to judgment on November 11, 2025 after nine years of litigation. The respondents' bill of costs was taxed at UGX 29,260,000 in Taxation Application No. 055 of 2025, with certificate of taxation issued January 21, 2026. The applicant filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal on March 2, 2026 (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2026). On April 30, 2026, after receiving a notice to show cause why execution should not issue against her for the taxed costs, the applicant moved the High Court for stay of execution pending appeal. The applicant alleged imminent threat of execution and claimed the appeal raised substantive questions of law and fact. She did not appeal the taxation decision itself. The third respondent had become registered proprietor of the land that was the subject of the original suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution discloses a basis for whether the relief sought should be granted.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Appeals from High Court to Court of Appeal — Applicable Legal Framework
There is no specific provision in the Civil Procedure Act or Civil Procedure Rules governing stay of execution pending appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. The court exercises inherent jurisdiction under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to grant such stay where necessary to meet the ends of justice.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Five-Prong Test — Application of Ssekikubo Standard
Applications for stay of execution pending appeal are evaluated using a five-prong test: (1) filing of notice of appeal and taking steps to prosecute it; (2) the appeal raises triable issues with strong likelihood of success; (3) irreparable damage will be suffered if stay not granted; (4) balance of convenience favours the grant; and (5) application made without delay. All factors must be satisfied for discretion to be exercised in applicant's favour.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Execution of Monetary Judgments — Irreparable Damage
Where execution concerns only a taxed bill of costs and the applicant has not appealed the taxation decision, no irreparable damage is shown merely by the filing of an appeal against the substantive judgment. If a judgment is of a nature to be actively enforced by execution and its execution does not delay or impair the character of the appeal, a stay will not be granted.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Balance of Convenience — Interests of Judgment Creditors
The balance of convenience does not favour stay of execution where the subject of execution is a monetary sum in taxed costs, the applicant has not appealed the taxation decision, and there is no evidence that the respondents lack means to refund the costs if the appeal succeeds. The interests of judgment creditors who have been out of pocket for a protracted period must be weighed against the appellant's interest in pursuing the appeal.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

  • Ejulu Martin v Itobu Margaret (HCMA No. 160 of 2022)
  • Ssekikubo and 3 Others v Attorney General and 4 Others (Constitutional Application No. 06 of 2013)
  • East Africa Law Society v Attorney General of Uganda (Reference No. 7 of 2012)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businge (SC Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • DFCU Bank v Crane Management Services (Miscellaneous Application No. 235 of 2025)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mary Martin v Kakuru Moses and Others (HCT-11-CV-CS-0036-2017; Miscellaneous Application No. 007 of 2026) [2026] UGHC 794 (14 July 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.