Wakilii

Musiima Winfred v Ainemababazi Ambrose and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 25 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1509 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 032 of 2022 pending determination of appeal in the Court of Appeal
Decision
Stay of execution granted pending determination of appeal; property sale stayed

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 granted a stay of execution of the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 032 of 2022 pending determination of the applicant's appeal. The court found that the applicant satisfied all statutory requirements under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules: she lodged a timely notice of appeal, would suffer substantial loss if the matrimonial property were sold, applied without unreasonable delay, and the certificate of title already held by the respondent bank could serve as security. The balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted pending determination of appeal; property sale stayed

Facts

The applicant, Musiima Winfred, sought a stay of execution of the judgment in Civil Suit No. 032 of 2022 pending her appeal to the Court of Appeal. The underlying suit concerned land comprised in Block 5 Plot 1603, registered in the name of the 2nd respondent, Akanyijuka Richard. The 1st respondent, Ainembabazi Ambrose, allegedly executed a power of attorney to pledge the certificate of title as security for a loan of UGX 30,000,000 from the 3rd respondent, Equity Bank (U) Ltd. The 2nd respondent denied executing such power of attorney. Judgment was delivered on 10 April 2025 in favour of the 3rd respondent, ordering the 1st and 2nd respondents to pay UGX 34,687,021 plus interest and costs. The applicant claimed the property was the matrimonial home, that she contributed to its development from her salary as a school teacher, and that the mortgage was executed without her spousal consent. She alleged the 3rd respondent, through Legal Max, was threatening to foreclose and sell the property. She lodged a notice of appeal on 16 April 2025 and filed this application on 22 May 2025.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has sufficient grounds for a stay of execution
  2. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • An Order of Stay of Execution of the Judgment and Decree in Civil Suit No. 032 of 2022 doth issue against the 3rd Respondent, its agents, and anyone rightfully claiming under it pending the determination of the Applicant's Appeal in the Court of Appeal vide COA-00-CV-CA-0307-2025.
  • The attachment and sale of the land comprised in Block 5 Plot 1603 is hereby stayed pending the determination of the Appeal (COA-00-CV-0307-2025).
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Statutory Requirements under Order 43 Rule 4(3)
For a court to grant a stay of execution under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the applicant must satisfy three conditions: (a) that substantial loss may result unless the order is made; (b) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (c) that security has been given for the due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon the applicant.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Principles for Grant
The principles for granting a stay of execution are: (1) the applicant must establish that the appeal has a likelihood of success or a prima facie case of the right to appeal; (2) the applicant must establish that irreparable damage will be suffered or that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if a stay is not granted; (3) if the first two have not been established, the court must consider where the balance of convenience lies; and (4) the applicant must establish that the application was instituted without delay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Notice of Appeal as Prerequisite
Evidence of lodging a notice of appeal is essential in an application for stay of execution, as it demonstrates the applicant's intention to pursue the appeal and establishes the foundation for the stay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
Substantial loss does not represent any particular size or amount but refers to any loss, great or small, that is of real worth or value as distinguished from a merely nominal loss.
Family Law — Matrimonial Property — Spousal Consent and Execution
Where property is matrimonial in nature and spousal consent to its mortgage or sale is contested, allowing execution before an appeal is heard would expose the non-consenting spouse to irreparable loss and render the appeal nugatory, justifying a stay of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance
Security for due performance of a decree under Order 43 Rule 4(3)(c) is not mandatory but discretionary. Where a certificate of title is already held by the decree holder and its value exceeds the decretal amount, it may reasonably serve as security for the stay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Balance of Convenience
In determining whether to grant a stay of execution, the court must balance the interest of the applicant in preserving the status quo pending appeal against the interest of the decree holder in enjoying the fruits of judgment. Where execution would cause irreversible damage and the appeal has not been determined, the balance of convenience favours maintaining the status quo.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (6)

  • Hon Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Appeal No. 6 of 2013)
  • Idah Iterura v Joyce Maguta (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 2 of 2006)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Alice Wambui Nganga Vs John Ngure Kahoro and another, ELC Case No. 482/2017 (at Thika); [2021] eKLR
  • Junaco (T) Ltd and 2 Others v DFCU Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 27 of 2023)
  • Jennifer Rwanyindo Aurelia and Another v School Outfitters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1999)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Musiima Winfred v Ainemababazi Ambrose and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 25 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 1509 (4 December 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.