Wakilii

Muyingo v Ssempijja & Another (Miscellaneous Application 125 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 370 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal to the Court of Appeal, arising from High Court Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2017
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Application for stay of execution pending appeal dismissed. The applicant failed to prove substantial loss, a prerequisite for stay of execution. While the applicant asserted possession of the disputed land, the respondent contested this, and the applicant failed to adduce sufficient evidence beyond his affidavit to prove occupation or derivation of livelihood from the land. Without proof of substantial loss, the application could not succeed.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The applicant was the appellant in HCCA No. 78 of 2017, which arose from Civil Suit No. 89 of 2014 in the Chief Magistrate's Court. Dissatisfied with the High Court's decision, he filed a second appeal to the Court of Appeal (COACA No. 189 of 2019). The respondents, who were successful in both the trial court and the first appeal, moved to tax their bill of costs and forwarded the file to the trial court for execution. The applicant sought to stay execution pending determination of his appeal, claiming he would lose his inheritance from his late father if the respondents sold the land. The respondents opposed, arguing they were entitled to enjoy the fruits of judgment after seven years of litigation and that the applicant had never been in possession of the land.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to grant the stay of execution.
  2. Whether this is a proper case for grant of stay of execution.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Prerequisites for Grant
For a court to grant a stay of execution pending appeal, the applicant must satisfy four prerequisites: (1) that a notice of appeal has been lodged; (2) that substantial loss may result if stay is not granted; (3) that the application was brought without unreasonable delay; and (4) that the applicant has given security for due performance of the decree or order.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Burden of Proof
Where an applicant for stay of execution claims substantial loss based on possession of land, but the respondent contests that possession, the applicant bears the burden of adducing sufficient evidence beyond mere assertion in an affidavit to prove occupation or derivation of livelihood from the land.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Meaning
Substantial loss for purposes of stay of execution means actual loss, whether great or small, as opposed to nominal damages, and is not determined by any mathematical formula whose computation yields any particular amount.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (4)

  • Ssekikubo & Others v Attorney General & Others (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Ndiege (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd & 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (Miscellaneous Application No. 379 of 2003)
  • Kaganda George William v Balinda & Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 46 of 2021)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Muyingo v Ssempijja & Another (Miscellaneous Application 125 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 370 (31 May 2023)
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.