Wakilii

Mushana v Mutazindwa & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 2422 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 6 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of High Court Land Division judgment pending appeal to Court of Appeal
Decision
Stay of execution granted conditionally; applicant must deposit UGX 15,000,000 within 30 days as security for due performance of the decree 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 conditional stay of execution pending appeal, applying the five conditions from Lawrence Musitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye: notice of appeal filed, imminent threat of execution, substantial loss to applicant, no unreasonable delay, and security for due performance of decree. The court ordered the applicant to deposit UGX 15,000,000 as security within 30 days, failing which execution may proceed.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted conditionally; applicant must deposit UGX 15,000,000 within 30 days as security for due performance of the decree pending appeal

Facts

The respondents obtained judgment on 31 May 2024 in Civil Suit No. 078 of 2019 declaring the applicant a trespasser on land comprised in Kyadondo Block 213 Plot 28 at Bukoto. The court ordered the applicant to vacate within 3 months, issued a permanent injunction, and awarded UGX 40,000,000 damages at 10% interest per annum. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 21 August 2024 and requested court proceedings for his appeal to the Court of Appeal. The decree was extracted on 8 July 2024 and the respondents filed a bill of costs pending taxation. The applicant operates rental businesses on the suit property with tenants in occupation and contends he is a lawful kibanja holder who acquired legal interest from the previous holder.

Issues

  1. Whether the application merits the grant of an order for stay of execution pending the determination of the appeal?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Stay of execution order granted on condition that the applicant deposits UGX 15,000,000 on the account of the Registrar High Court as security for due performance of the decree within 30 days from the date of this ruling.
  • Failure to comply with the said condition, the respondents are at liberty to proceed with the execution process to retrieve the fruits of their judgment.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Inherent Jurisdiction of High Court Where Appeal Lies to Court of Appeal
Where there is no specific provision regarding stay of execution of a High Court decree where appeal lies to the Court of Appeal, the court exercises its inherent powers under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to preserve the subject matter in dispute and safeguard the appellant's undoubted right of appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Five Conditions for Grant
An applicant for stay of execution pending appeal must satisfy five conditions: (i) lodging of notice of appeal; (ii) serious and imminent threat of execution that would render the appeal nugatory; (iii) substantial loss would result unless stay is granted; (iv) application made without unreasonable delay; and (v) provision of security for due performance of the decree.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
The phrase 'substantial loss' does not represent any particular amount or size and cannot be qualified by mathematical formula; it refers to any loss great or small of real worth or value as distinguished from loss that is merely nominal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Unreasonable Delay
An application for stay of execution filed two months after extraction of decree and one month after filing notice of appeal does not constitute unreasonable delay, particularly where the applicant has taken prompt steps to appeal and contest execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance
The requirement for payment of security for due performance of the decree is to ensure that the losing party does not intentionally delay execution while hiding under unnecessary applications; the decision to order security must be made in consonance with the probability of success of the appeal and each case must be looked at according to its own merits.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (7)

  • Singh v Runda Coffee Estates Limited (1966) EA
  • Lawrence Musitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Theodore Sekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Limited & 2 Others v International Credit Bank Limited (in liquidation) (2004) EA
  • Gashumba Maniraghuha v Sam Nkudiye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2015)
  • John Baptista Kawanga v Namyalo Kevina & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2017)
  • Gapco Uganda Limited v Kaweesa & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 259 of 2013) [UGHCLD 47]

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mushana_v_Mutazindwa_&_3_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_2422_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_6_(13_January_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.