Wakilii

Masette Stephen and Another v Khainza Hellen (Miscellaneous Application No. 60 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1359 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed 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 Appeal No. 171 of 2022 (which arose from Civil Suit No. 48 of 2018)
Decision
Stay of execution granted conditional upon payment of security within thirty 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

The High Court granted the application for stay of execution pending appeal, subject to the applicants paying UGX 5,000,000 as security for due performance of the decree within thirty days. The court found that the applicants had lodged a timely notice of appeal, that there was an imminent threat of execution which would render the appeal nugatory, and that the applicants would suffer substantial loss if execution proceeded. However, the court required security because the applicants failed to demonstrate that their appeal had a high likelihood of success and had not attached a memorandum of appeal.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted conditional upon payment of security within thirty days

Facts

The respondent sued the applicants in the Chief Magistrate's Court in Civil Suit No. 46 of 2019, claiming she was the lawful owner of suit land and that the applicants were trespassers. The trial court entered judgment in favour of the respondent. The applicants appealed to the High Court in Civil Appeal No. 171 of 2022, which was also determined in favour of the respondent on 28 January 2025. The applicants filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal on 4 February 2025. The respondent then took steps to execute the judgment, including issuing an eviction notice, transferring the court file to the lower court for execution, and filing a bill of costs for taxation. The applicants brought this application seeking to stay execution pending determination of their appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants have lodged a notice of appeal.
  2. Whether there is serious or imminent threat of execution of the decree or order and if the application is not granted, the appeal would be rendered nugatory.
  3. Whether the Applicants would suffer substantial loss.
  4. Whether the application has been made without unreasonable delay.
  5. Whether the appeal has a high likelihood of success.
  6. Whether the Applicants have furnished security for due performance of the decree.

Orders

  • The Applicants shall pay UGX 5,000,000 (Five million shillings) as security for due performance of a decree within a period of thirty days from the date of this ruling.
  • Upon payment of the sums of money indicated in (a) above, the execution of the judgment and orders issued in Civil Suit No. 46 of 2019 and Civil Appeal No. 171 of 2022 shall be stayed pending the determination of the Applicants' appeal before the Court of Appeal.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
An order for stay of execution pending appeal will not be made unless the court is satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made, that the application has been made without unreasonable delay, and that security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him or her.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Notice of Appeal
An applicant for stay of execution must show that he lodged a notice of appeal within the time prescribed by law, being fourteen days after the date of the decision against which it is desired to appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Threat of Execution
An applicant for stay of execution must prove that there is serious or imminent threat of execution of the decree or order and that if the application is not granted, the appeal would be rendered nugatory.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
The discretionary relief of stay of execution pending appeal is designed on the basis that no one would be worse off by virtue of an order of the court. The court in balancing the competing rights of the appellant to his appeal and the decree holder to the decree focuses on their reconciliation. It must be shown by clear evidence that if execution proceeds, there may be some irreparable loss caused.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success
It is not necessary at the stage of an application for stay of execution to pre-empt the consideration of matters necessary in deciding whether or not the appeal would succeed, neither is it incumbent on the applicants to demonstrate the possibility of success of the appeal, but they have to prove that the appeal is not frivolous and vexatious by demonstrating that their appeal raises serious questions of law and fact.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance
No order for stay of execution shall be made unless the court is satisfied that security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him or her. Payment for security for costs is intended to operate as a shield against filing frivolous and vexatious appeals which may never succeed.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (10)

  • Hon. Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Dr. Ahmed Muhammed Kasule v Greenland Bank in Receivership (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 07 of 2010)
  • Orute Aloysius and 4 Others v Alupo Esther (Civil Application No. 960 of 2023)
  • Absalom Dova, V Tarbo Transporters [2013] eKLR
  • Wilson Mukiibi v James Semusambwa (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9 of 2003)
  • Wilson V. Church (1879) volume 12Ch d 454
  • Global Capital Save 2004 Ltd and Another v Alice Okiror and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 485 of 2012)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Sentongo v I and M Bank Limited (Civil Application No. 113 of 2023)
  • The Annot Lyle (1886) II PD 114 at 116

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Masette Stephen and Another v Khainza Hellen (Miscellaneous Application No. 60 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 1359 (12 December 2025)
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.