Wakilii

Mugona John v Muhereza Yason and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1174 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 102 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal from dismissal of application to set aside exparte judgment
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

The High Court dismissed an application for stay of execution pending appeal. The court held that although the applicant filed a Notice of Appeal, he failed to establish that the appeal had a likelihood of success, that he would suffer substantial loss beyond ordinary loss, or that he had taken active steps to prosecute the appeal. The applicant also failed to furnish security for due performance of the decree.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The applicant was the second defendant in Civil Suit No. 382 of 2018 arising from a property sale and insurance indemnity dispute. An exparte judgment was entered against him. His application to set aside the exparte judgment (Miscellaneous Application No. 19 of 2024) was dismissed on 6 September 2024. He filed a Notice of Appeal on 17 September 2024 and this application for stay of execution on 11 November 2024. The first respondent had commenced execution proceedings including seeking the applicant's arrest and committal to civil prison. The applicant contended he was never properly served with court process in the original suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. Whether the applicant filed a valid Notice of Appeal.
  3. Whether the intended appeal has a likelihood of success.
  4. Whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted.
  5. Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay.
  6. Whether the applicant furnished security for due performance of the decree.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Inherent Jurisdiction of High Court
Although there is no specific provision in the Civil Procedure Rules enabling the High Court to grant a stay of execution against its decree pending an appeal, the Court has inherent jurisdiction to grant such stay, including stay of execution pending an appeal from a refusal to set aside an exparte decree.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
For a stay of execution pending appeal to be granted, the applicant must establish: (1) that a Notice of Appeal has been lodged; (2) that substantial loss may result unless stay is granted; (3) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; (4) that security has been given for due performance of the decree; (5) that there is serious or imminent threat of execution; (6) that the appeal is not frivolous and has a likelihood of success; and (7) that refusal to grant stay would inflict more hardship than it would avoid.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Validity of Notice of Appeal
The question as to the invalidity of a Notice of Appeal is a matter for the appellate court, not the trial court hearing an application for stay of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
The word 'substantial loss' in the context of stay of execution must mean something in addition to and different from the ordinary loss to which every judgment-debtor is necessarily subjected when he loses his case and is deprived of his property. Unless details and particulars of the loss are specified, there is no basis upon which the court can satisfy itself that such loss would really be incurred. The mere fact that a judgment debtor is likely to be imprisoned for non-payment is not substantial loss beyond the ordinary loss, given that arrest and committal is one of the ways to ensure satisfaction of the decretal sum.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Unreasonable Delay
Where an applicant files a Notice of Appeal and a letter requesting proceedings but takes no active steps to prosecute the appeal for over a year, the applicant has not acted without unreasonable delay. The excuse that certified proceedings have not been provided does not hold water where there is no evidence of follow-up on the request. Active pursuit of the appeal demonstrates good faith and shows the applicant is not using the application as a delaying tactic.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance
An applicant for stay of execution must show willingness to offer security for the due performance of the decree. The reasons for payment of security are to maintain status quo among the parties, to ascertain that the purpose of the application is not merely to defeat the course of justice by delaying tactics, and to prove that the judgment debtor is serious with his application.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (19)

  • Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 3 of 2013)
  • Abid Alam v Windriver Logistics Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 219 of 2021)
  • Formula Feeds Limited and 3 Others v KCB Bank Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Dr Ahmed Muhammed Kisuule v Greenland Bank (in liquidation) (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 7 of 2010)
  • Andrew Kisawuzi v Dan Oundo (Miscellaneous Application No. 467 of 2013)
  • Umeme Limited v Rurihoona Elisam (Miscellaneous Application No. 70 of 2021)
  • Tedy Sseezi Cheeye v Enos Tumusiime (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 21 of 1996)
  • Francis Nansio Micar Vs Nuwa Walakara [1992] IV KALR 62
  • Mugenyi & Co. Advocates Vs National Insurance Corporation [1992] V KALR 82
  • Elizabeth Nakanywagi Vs Sterling Civil Engineering (U) Ltd [1995] IV KALR 27
  • Nganga Vs Kimani [1969] 1 EA 67
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Alcon International Vs Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates [1995] III KALR 91
  • Kabanda Connie Vs Kananura Pelvin Consulting Engineers [1992] III KALR 20
  • Wamboya Abu Vs Gidima Sulaiman [1997] II KARL 103
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Cogecot Cotton Co. SA [1995-1998] 1 EA 312
  • Zanzibar Insurance Corporation Vs Chacha [2005] 2 EA 364
  • Pan African Insurance Company (U) Ltd v International Air Transport Association (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mugona John v Muhereza Yason and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1174 of 2024) [2026] UGHCCD 102 (31 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.