Wakilii

Mayimuna v Metropolitan Properties Ltd (Civil Application No. 48 of 2015)

Court of Appeal · [2015] UGCA 28 · 2015 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for an interim order of stay of execution pending determination of the substantive application for stay
Decision
Interim order of stay of execution granted for 60 days pending hearing of the substantive application for stay

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

A single Justice of the Court of Appeal granted an interim order of stay of execution pending determination of the substantive stay application. The court reaffirmed that an interim order is warranted where there is a pending appeal or notice of appeal, a substantive application for stay pending, and an apparent threat of execution. Finding all three conditions established on the balance of probabilities, the court granted a stay to remain in force for 60 days, urging the applicant to expedite fixing the pending application and appeal. The court declined the respondent's request to direct the Registrar of Titles to encumber the title, finding that prayer misplaced and misconceived. Costs were to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Outcome

Interim order of stay of execution granted for 60 days pending hearing of the substantive application for stay

Facts

The applicant sought an interim order of stay of execution of the judgment and decree of the High Court (Land Division) in Civil Suit No. 41 of 2011, delivered on 23 December 2011, pending the hearing and determination of the main application for stay of execution by a full bench of three justices. The applicant was an appellant in the Court of Appeal, and a substantive application for stay was pending. There was evidence that the respondent had at some point applied for execution, making a threat of execution apparent. The respondent opposed the application but, in the alternative, sought that if a stay were granted the court should also direct the Registrar of Lands to stop any dealings on freehold register VOl. 210 folio 11.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of an interim order of stay of execution pending the hearing of the substantive application for stay.

Orders

  • Application granted and interim order of stay of execution issued.
  • Interim order to remain in force for 60 days from the date of delivery of the ruling.
  • Respondent's prayer to direct the Registrar of Titles to encumber the title in freehold VOl. 210 folio 11 declined.
  • Registrar directed to find room on the cause list for the appeal in the next convenient civil session.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interim Order of Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
An interim order of stay of execution may be granted where there is a notice of appeal or pending appeal, a pending substantive application for stay, and a serious or apparent threat of execution before the hearing of the substantive application.
Civil Procedure — Interim Orders — Preservation of Status Quo and Right of Appeal
The purpose of an interim order is to preserve the status quo and the right of appeal so that the main issues between the parties may be determined by the full court, and Rule 2(2) confers wide discretion on the court to make such orders as may be necessary to achieve the ends of justice.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.43

Cases cited (5)

  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and others Vs. The Attorney General; Constitutional Application Number 4
  • Sinba (K) Ltd and 4 Others v Uganda Crop Board (Civil Application No. 5 of 2014)
  • Amos Nzeyi v Bank of Uganda (Constitutional Application No. 1 of 2013)
  • Yakobo M.S. Sekungu and Others v Precisio Mukasa (Civil Application No. 5 of 2013)
  • Gurayano v Kasidyo (Civil Application No. 3 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mayimuna v Metropolitan Properties Ltd (Civil Application No. 48 of 2015) [2015] UGCA 28 (26 March 2015)
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.