Wakilii

Muhorro Town Council v Rutalihamu (Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 90 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal to the Court of Appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution 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

An application for stay of execution pending appeal must satisfy the conditions under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, including showing that substantial loss may result unless the order is made. The applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss beyond the ordinary loss every judgment debtor suffers. The mere fact that a local government unit depends on local revenue and central government releases does not constitute substantial loss warranting stay of execution. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The respondent sued the applicant town council for trespass to land he claimed to own through lawful purchase. The Chief Magistrate's Court dismissed the respondent's suit. The respondent appealed to the High Court in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2020, which was decided in his favour with declarations that the suit property belonged to him, that the applicant was a trespasser, and awards of UGX 30,000,000 as general damages, UGX 5,000,000 as punitive damages, costs and 20% interest per annum. The applicant filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal and simultaneously applied for stay of execution of the High Court judgment pending the appeal, arguing that it would suffer substantial loss because it is a lower government unit dependent on local revenue and that eviction of market vendors would cause community unrest and hinder economic recovery.

Issues

  1. Whether there is sufficient cause for grant of an order for stay of execution of the judgment and decree in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2020.
  2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Substantial Loss
To amount to substantial loss warranting stay of execution, the deprivation must be over and above the ordinary loss resulting from litigation that every judgment debtor necessarily suffers when losing a case and being deprived of property in consequence.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Public Bodies — No Special Treatment
A court will not grant stay of execution to a local government unit merely because it depends on local revenue and central government releases and execution may frustrate service delivery to taxpayers. Execution of a court order will not be stayed simply because its execution would make it impossible for a respondent to carry out its statutory duty.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — 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 find a basis for grant of stay in appropriate cases, fulfilling the first condition for stay of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Burden of Proof on Applicant
An applicant seeking stay of execution must go beyond vague and general assertions of substantial loss and demonstrate with specificity that it is likely to suffer substantial loss or that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if the application for stay is not granted.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Correct Legal Basis
An application for stay of execution of a decree by the court which passed the decree pending appeal should be brought under Order 43 rule 4(2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, not Order 22 rule 23 which applies when a decree has been sent to another court for execution.

Legislation cited (13)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.23
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.4(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.4(3)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.6
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.4
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.7
  • Physical Planning Act 2010

Cases cited (10)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Hon Theodore Ssekikuubo & Others v Attorney General & Others (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Attorney General v East African Law Society & Another (East African Court of Justice Application No. 1 of 2013)
  • Equity Bank (U) Ltd v Nicholas Were (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 604 of 2013)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Marine and General Mutual Life Assurance Society v Feltwill Feri Second District Drainage Board [1945] KB 394
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Cogecot Cotton Co SA (1995-1998) EA 312
  • Pan African Insurance Co (U) Ltd v International Air Transport Association (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2006)
  • Joy Tumushabe & Another v M/s Angelo African Ltd & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1990)
  • Hwansung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein & Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Muhorro Town Council v Rutalihamu (Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 90 (6 May 2022)
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.