Muyanja v Kitumba (Miscellaneous Application 794 of 2021)

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

Application for stay of execution dismissed. Court held that no substantial loss would result to the applicant as the estate had already been distributed and the applicant had received his share. The application was made with unreasonable delay, filed more than a month after the applicant sought leave to appeal. No evidence of commencement of execution proceedings was shown. The applicant failed to satisfy the requirements under Order 43 rule 3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules for granting a stay of execution pending appeal.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant and respondent are brothers. The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 75 of 2013 seeking orders to vacate caveats lodged by the applicant against the estate of their late father Steven Semugenya, and to appoint new administrators. Judgment was delivered on 3 August 2021 in favour of the respondent, ordering the lifting of caveats, appointment of administrators (including the respondent), restraining the applicant and his mother from dealing with the estate, removal of caveats on estate property, and awarding the respondent general damages of UGX 30,000,000. The applicant filed a notice of appeal and sought leave to appeal out of time in the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2021. On 10 December 2021, the applicant filed this application for stay of execution. By 28 January 2022, the appointed administrators had filed an inventory showing distribution of the estate, with the applicant receiving his share.

Issues

1. Whether the execution of a decree and orders arising from the judgment in HCCS No. 75 of 2013 can be stayed by the Court pending appeal.
2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 71 s.98
• Judicature Act Cap. 13 s.33
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 52 Rules 1 and 2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 3(4)

Cases cited (8)

• Walusimbi Mustafa v Musenze Lukia (Miscellaneous Application No. 232 of 2018)
• Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (SCCA No. 18 of 1990)
• Thembi Nakibuka Sebalu v Peter Sematimba & 2 Others (SCCA No. 15 of 2014)
• Otim Talib & Others v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 242 of 2017)
• Umeme Ltd v Rurihoona Elisam (Miscellaneous Application No. 70 of 2021)
• Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
• Equity Bank Uganda Ltd v Nicholas Were (Miscellaneous Application No. 604 of 2013)
• Kampala Capital City Authority v Mulangira Joseph (Miscellaneous Application No. 26 of 2016)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Kamya v Nakazibwe (Miscellaneous Application 72 of 2023)

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