Wakilii

Mugisa Stephen v Kyaligonza Ashraf (Civil Application No. 0105 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1377 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending determination of appeal in 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

The High Court dismissed an application for stay of execution pending appeal. While the applicant proved the existence of a pending appeal, the court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss, provide security for due performance of the decree, and filed the application with unreasonable delay of over two years after judgment. The application lacked merit on critical grounds required under Order 43 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant, as administrator of the estate of the late Anna Matama, was the unsuccessful party in High Court Civil Appeal No. 0027 of 2020, with judgment delivered on 22 April 2022. The applicant filed Civil Appeal No. 0284 of 2022 in the Court of Appeal on 28 July 2022, which remained pending. The applicant alleged that pending the appeal, the respondent descended on the suit land measuring approximately 3.5 acres located at Kalyango cell, Masindi municipality, cut down all trees, and slashed it with intention to lease it for sugarcane plantation. The applicant sought stay of execution to prevent the respondent from dealing with the property. The respondent stated he was in full possession of the suit land, resided there with his family, used it to derive sustenance, and had not applied for execution of the decree. The application was filed on 3 July 2024, more than two years after the High Court judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has lodged a notice of appeal.
  2. Whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss if stay of execution is not granted.
  3. Whether there is a likelihood of success in the applicant's pending appeal.
  4. Whether the applicant has given security for the due performance of the decree.
  5. Whether the application has been made without unreasonable delay.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements under Order 43 Rule 4
An applicant seeking stay of execution must satisfy the court that substantial loss may result unless the order is made, that the application has been made without unreasonable delay, and that security has been provided for the proper execution of the decree or order as ultimately binding.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Definition and Proof
Substantial loss does not represent any specific amount or size and cannot be determined mathematically. It refers to any loss, greater or small, of real worth or value as distinguished from a merely nominal loss. Clear evidence must be shown that proceeding with execution could cause some irreparable loss.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Absence of Execution Proceedings
The general rule is that courts should not issue a stay of execution where there is no evidence of an application to enforce a decree. The absence of pending execution proceedings weighs against granting a stay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Unreasonable Delay
An intended appellant who has filed a notice of appeal should apply for a stay of execution as soon as possible, rather than waiting until after lodging the appeal. Filing an application for stay more than two years after judgment constitutes unreasonable delay.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (8)

  • Malinga Noah & 2 Others v Akol Henry (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 0203 of 2015)
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v Kaweesa & Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 2590 of 2013)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd & 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (2004) 2 EA 331
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v Attorney General & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 003 of 2014)
  • Okale Aloysius & Others v Alupo Esther (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 0960 of 2023)
  • Wilson Mukiibi v James Semusambwa (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 009 of 2003)
  • Kizza Sanyu v Emojong John (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 130 of 2024)
  • Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui v Tony Mather & 5 Others [2013] EKLR

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mugisa Stephen v Kyaligonza Ashraf (Civil Application No. 0105 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 1377 (15 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.