Wakilii

Muganzi v Bagahya (Miscellaneous Application 36 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 1149 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution arising from Civil Suit No. 83 of 2023 pending appeal to the Court of Appeal
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 dismissed. Court held that applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss beyond ordinary loss in litigation, failed to provide security for due performance of the decree, and did not establish sufficient grounds for stay despite absence of unreasonable delay. Security for costs paid to Court of Appeal does not satisfy requirement for security for due performance of the decree in the trial court.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant was the first defendant in Civil Suit No. 83 of 2023 which was determined in favour of the respondent by the High Court at Hoima on 29 September 2023. The suit concerned ownership of land which the court declared belonged to the respondent, awarding her general damages of UGX 30,000,000 and ordering delivery of vacant possession. The applicant filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 227 of 2024) which remains pending. The respondent obtained a certificate of taxation for costs totalling UGX 12,250,000 and served notice of eviction on 5 March 2024. The applicant filed this application for stay of execution on 6 March 2024, depositing security for costs in the Court of Appeal but not providing security for due performance of the decree at the trial court.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has sufficient reasons for the grant of stay of execution.
  2. Whether the applicant would suffer substantial loss if execution is not stayed.
  3. Whether there was unreasonable delay in filing the application for stay of execution.
  4. Whether the applicant has provided security for due performance of the decree.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Requirement to Prove Loss Beyond Ordinary Litigation Loss
For stay of execution to be granted on grounds of substantial loss, the applicant must demonstrate loss over and above the ordinary loss resulting from litigation, which every judgment debtor necessarily suffers when property is lost. It is not enough to merely repeat the words of the code and state that substantial loss will result; the kind of loss must be specified, details must be given, and the court's conscience must be satisfied that such loss will really occur.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance of Decree — Distinct from Security for Costs on Appeal
Security for costs deposited in the Court of Appeal does not satisfy the requirement for security for due performance of the decree at the trial court. An applicant seeking stay of execution must deposit reasonable security for due performance of the decree or make an undertaking to pay taxed costs before presenting the application.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Unreasonable Delay — Promptness in Filing Application
Where an applicant files an application for stay of execution within two weeks of receiving notice of eviction, and the notice itself allows less than three weeks to appear, the application cannot be held to have been filed with unreasonable delay.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (6)

  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd & 2 Ors v International Credit Bank Ltd (in liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Cogecot Cotton Co. S.A (1995-1998) EA 312
  • Walusimbi Mustafa v Musenze Lukia (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 232 of 2018)
  • Singh v Runda Coffee Estates Ltd [1966] EA
  • Pan African Insurance Co (U) Ltd v International Air Transport Association (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2006)
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Cogecot Cotton Co. S.A (1995-1998) EA 312

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Muganzi v Bagahya (Miscellaneous Application 36 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1149 (6 December 2024)
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.