Wakilii

Mugisa Florence Kyaligonza & 2 Ors v Jane Rose Tusiime (Administrator of the (Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 409 · 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. 013 of 2020
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed

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 for stay of execution arising from a judgment that vacated a caveat and struck out a suit as res judicata was dismissed. The court held that no substantial loss would result to the applicants and there was no threat of execution, since the only substantive order—vacating the caveat—had already been carried out and the title transferred. The application was overtaken by events.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The applicants filed an application for stay of execution of a judgment delivered on 15 January 2024 that struck out Civil Suit No. 013 of 2020 as res judicata and vacated a caveat lodged by the 1st applicant on land comprised in Block 91, Plot 52 at Kihembo, Kidukuru. The applicants lodged a notice of appeal on 29 January 2024 and sought a stay on the grounds that the land would be distributed by the administrator (the 3rd respondent) and transferred, and that there were graves on the land which risked exhumation. The respondents opposed the application, asserting there was no threat of execution. By the time of the hearing, the caveat had already been vacated and the title transferred into the names of the 3rd respondent.

Issues

  1. Whether this application meets the test for grant of an order of stay of execution.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties in the circumstances.

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Lodgment of Notice of Appeal as Sufficient Expression of Intent
A notice of appeal is a sufficient expression of an intention to file an appeal and such action is sufficient to found the basis for grant of orders of stay in appropriate cases.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements for Grant
For a stay of execution to be granted under Order 43 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the applicant must prove that substantial loss may result unless the order is made, that the application was made without unreasonable delay, and that security has been given for due performance of the decree.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Meaning
Substantial loss for purposes of stay of execution need not be determined by a mathematical formula, but represents actual loss whether great or small, as opposed to nominal damages. The loss must be such that it cannot be atoned by an award of damages.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Application Overtaken by Events
Where the substantive act which an application for stay of execution seeks to prevent has already been performed, the application is overtaken by events and must fail.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (6)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (SC Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Dr. Ahmed Muhammed Kisule v Greenland Bank (in Liquidation) (SC Civil Application No. 7 of 2010)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Attorney General v East African Law Society & Another (EACA Application No. 1 of 2013)
  • Equity Bank Uganda Ltd v Nicholas Were (Miscellaneous Application No. 604 of 2013)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd & 2 Ors v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (Miscellaneous Application No. 379 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mugisa Florence Kyaligonza & 2 Ors v Jane Rose Tusiime (Administrator of the (Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 409 (31 May 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.