Wakilii

Mugerwa Geofrey v Muzzha Zedekiah [2026] UGHCLD 49

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of a High Court decree pending appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs; execution of the decree in Civil Suit No. 468 of 2021 not stayed

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

An application to stay execution of a decree must be supported by a notice of appeal against the very judgment or decree sought to be stayed, and must satisfy Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules as to substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay and security for due performance. The applicant's notice of appeal was filed against the ruling in a separate application to set aside an ex parte judgment, not against the judgment in the civil suit whose execution he sought to stay. Coupled with a nine-month delay after the judgment, the application was incompetent and untenable. Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs; execution of the decree in Civil Suit No. 468 of 2021 not stayed

Facts

Judgment in Civil Suit No. 468 of 2021 was entered ex parte against the applicant on 4 April 2024 and the decree endorsed on 31 May 2024. The respondent, as judgment creditor, filed a bill of costs and a taxation hearing notice issued on 10 October 2024. On 13 August 2024 the applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 2156 of 2024 seeking to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree; that application was dismissed on 30 April 2025 because it was founded on an affidavit containing a fundamental falsehood. On 14 May 2025 the applicant filed a notice of appeal challenging the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 2156 of 2024. On 10 June 2025 he filed the present application seeking a stay of execution of the decree, orders and judgment in Civil Suit No. 468 of 2021 pending determination of Civil Appeal No. 0401 of 2025, asserting he derived his livelihood from the suit property, would suffer substantial loss, and had not delayed. The respondent contended there had been unreasonable delay of nine months, no undertaking as to security for costs, and that the application was an abuse of process.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of an order of stay of execution pending appeal.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules
No order for stay of execution may be made unless the court is satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made, that the application was made without unreasonable delay, and that security has been given for the due performance of the decree or order ultimately binding on the applicant.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirement of a Pending Appeal Against the Decree Sought to Be Stayed
An application for stay of execution must be supported by a pending appeal directed at the very judgment, decree or order whose execution is sought to be stayed; where the notice of appeal relates to a different ruling, the application is unsupported and incompetent.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Unreasonable Delay in Bringing the Application
A delay of some nine months between delivery of the judgment sought to be stayed and the filing of the application for stay of execution constitutes unreasonable delay and, together with the absence of a competent supporting notice of appeal, renders the application untenable.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mugerwa Geofrey v Muzzha Zedekiah [2026] UGHCLD 49 (10 March 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.