Mukwaya and 2 Others v Twaha Kizito and Another (Civil Application 63 of 2022)

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.

Holding

The court reiterated that an applicant for an interim stay of execution must establish three conditions: a competent Notice of Appeal, a pending substantive application, and a serious threat of execution. The single Justice found that, although a substantive omnibus application (Civil Application No. 68 of 2021) was pending and a serious threat of execution existed (the respondents having obtained a notice to show cause), the Notice of Appeal was incompetent because it had not been endorsed or signed by the Deputy Registrar and concerned an interlocutory matter requiring leave. Having failed to establish a competent Notice of Appeal, the applicants did not satisfy all conditions, and the application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for interim stay of execution dismissed with costs

Facts

The respondents instituted Civil Suit No. 160 of 2012 against the applicants, seeking a declaration that suit property formed part of the estate of the late Kasaka and Hajjati Salima Nampande. The respondents obtained a temporary injunction (Misc. Application No. 762 of 2011) and later filed Misc. Application No. 426 of 2019 to hold the applicants in contempt of court orders. That contempt application was determined in the respondents' favour, with orders requiring the applicants to pay rental income of UGX 100,000,000 monthly from October 2015, punitive damages of UGX 100,000,000, a fine of UGX 50,000,000, and to cancel and revert the certificate of title. The applicants filed a Notice of Appeal and an omnibus application (Civil Application No. 68 of 2021) seeking leave to appeal and stay of execution. The respondents obtained a notice to show cause why execution should not ensue and fixed a taxation hearing. The applicants then sought an interim order staying execution pending disposal of the substantive application.

Issues

1. Whether there was a competent Notice of Appeal before the court.
2. Whether there was a substantive application for stay of execution pending.
3. Whether there was a serious or imminent threat of execution.
4. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for the grant of an interim order of stay of execution.

Orders

• Application dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.43(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.44(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.72
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.76(4)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.83(3)

Cases cited (8)

• Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 4 of 2014)
• Hwang Sung Industries Limited v Tajdin Hussein and Others (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
• Zubeda Mohammad and Another v Laila Kaka Wajja and Another (Civil Reference No. 7 of 2016)
• Nakibuuka Sebalu v Sematimba and Others (Civil Application No. 15 of 2014)
• China Henan International Cooperation Group Co Ltd v Justus Kyabahwa (Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2021)
• Lukwago Erias v KCCA (Civil Application No. 6 of 2014)
• Global Capital Save 2004 Ltd and Another v Alice Okiror and Another (Civil Application No. 57 of 2021)
• Jingo Livingstone Mukasa v Hope Bwaguma (Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2015)

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