Mutonyi & 3 Others v Byabagambi & Another (Civil Application 12 of 2013)

Observed later treatment

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 Supreme Court granted a stay of execution of the Court of Appeal and High Court costs orders pending the applicants' appeal. It held there is no requirement under the Supreme Court Rules to annex a copy of the impugned judgment, nor to deposit security for due performance of a decree before the court exercises its discretion under Rule 6(2)(b); any past practice of requiring such security is merely a rule of practice. The Rule 41 objection did not arise because the applicants had first unsuccessfully applied to the Court of Appeal. Given the enormous taxed costs, executing them would block the applicants' right of appeal and render the appeal nugatory, so a stay was just.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted without deposit of security, pending the final disposal of the applicants' appeal to the Supreme Court

Facts

The applicants sued the respondents in the High Court (Civil Suit No. 330 of 2009) seeking declarations that they were bona fide occupants of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 243 Plot 2248. The High Court dismissed the suit with costs. The applicants' appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2010) was likewise dismissed with costs. The respondents' bills of costs were taxed at shs. 122,050,000 in the Court of Appeal and shs. 161,468,500 in the High Court. The respondents secured a warrant of arrest in execution; the first applicant was arrested and detained and forced to pay part of the sum. Having lodged a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court and after an unsuccessful stay application to the Court of Appeal, the applicants sought a stay of execution from the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the application was incompetent for failure to annex a copy of the Court of Appeal decision sought to be stayed.
2. Whether, under Rule 41 of the Supreme Court Rules, the application ought first to have been made to the Court of Appeal.
3. Whether the applicants must deposit security for the due performance of the decree before a stay of execution can be granted.
4. Whether an order of stay of execution should issue pending the disposal of the appeal.

Orders

• An order of stay of execution of the orders of the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2010 and High Court Civil Suit No. 330 of 2009 issued until the final disposal of the applicants' appeal to the Supreme Court.
• The interim order of stay issued by Tsekooko, Ag. JSC vide Civil Application No. 13 of 2013 lapses.
• The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Supreme Court Rules r.2(2)
• Supreme Court Rules r.6(2)(b)
• Supreme Court Rules r.41
• Supreme Court Rules r.43(1)
• Supreme Court Rules r.101

Cases cited (2)

• National Housing & Construction Ltd v Kampala District Land Board & Anor (Civil Application No. 6 of 2002)
• Margaret Kato and Joel Kato v Nuulu Nalwoga (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2011)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Sunday Edward Mukhooli v Administrator General (Suing through Grace Matovu) (Civil Application No. 559 of 2026; HCCS No. 856 of 2019) followed
• Validity Foundation v FIDA Uganda & 3 Others (Civil Application 264 of 2022)
• Collaboration of International ICT Policy for East & Southern Africa (CIPESA) & 2 Others v Initiative for Social & Economic Rights (ISER) Limited & 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 650 of 2022) [20

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