Wakilii

Mukasasalongo v Mukiibi Geofrey (Miscellaneous Application No. 3302 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 116 · 2026 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal from High Court judgment in Civil Suit No. 83 of 2015
Decision
Stay of execution granted conditionally pending appeal

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 court granted a stay of execution pending appeal on condition that the applicant deposit security of UGX 5,000,000 within 60 days. The court found that three of the four conditions under Order 43 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules were satisfied: notice of appeal had been lodged, substantial loss would result from execution (as the decree had been partly executed and the applicant evicted), and the application was brought without unreasonable delay. Although the applicant failed to express willingness to pay security for costs, the court exercised its discretion to grant the stay conditionally, staying only the general damages and costs components of the decree.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted conditionally pending appeal

Facts

The applicant was the defendant in Civil Suit No. 83 of 2015, in which judgment was delivered on 5 July 2024 against him. The respondent, who obtained judgment, forcefully evicted the applicant from the suit land and demolished his house without following proper court procedures. The respondent subsequently transferred the land title to a third party, Kigundu Charles, who was not a party to the original suit. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 15 July 2024 and lodged the record of appeal on 31 October 2024. The respondent filed Taxation Application No. 358 of 2024 to tax the bill of costs awarded in the judgment. The applicant then brought this application in December 2024 seeking a stay of execution pending determination of Civil Appeal No. 699 of 2024, arguing that the decree had been partly executed and that further execution would render the appeal nugatory.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has sufficient grounds for a stay of execution pending appeal.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution granted on condition that the applicant deposits UGX 5,000,000 within 60 days from the ruling.
  • Stay of execution applies only to the grant of general damages and costs.
  • Taxation Application No. 358 of 2024 stayed pending determination of Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 669 of 2024.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
An application for stay of execution pending appeal requires the applicant to satisfy four conditions: (1) lodging a notice of appeal; (2) showing that substantial loss may result unless stay is granted; (3) bringing the application without unreasonable delay; and (4) giving security for due performance of the decree.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
Substantial loss for purposes of stay of execution means something in addition to and different from the ordinary loss which every judgment debtor necessarily suffers when deprived of property in consequence of losing a case.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Partial Execution of Decree
Where a decree has been partly executed through forceful eviction of the judgment debtor and transfer of the suit property to a third party, there is eminent danger of full execution and the condition of substantial loss is satisfied.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Costs — Discretion of Court
Security for due performance of a decree is not mandatory and is ordered at the discretion of the court, which must consider each case according to its merits. Where an applicant has satisfied most conditions for stay but has not expressed willingness to pay security, the court may exercise discretion to grant a conditional stay requiring payment of security within a specified time.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (2)

  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Coget Cotton Co. S.A (1995-1998) EA 312
  • John Baptist Kawanga v Namyalo Kevina & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mukasasalongo_v_Mukiibi_Geofrey_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._3302_of_2024)_[2026]_UGHCLD_116_(20_April_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.