Wakilii

Nabimanya v Lameck & Another (Miscellaneous Application 228 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 99 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of judgment pending appeal
Decision
Stay of execution granted conditional on deposit of security; appeal proceedings may continue

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 judgment in a land dispute pending appeal, conditional upon the applicant depositing UGX 25,000,000 as security within 30 days. The court found that the applicant had filed a notice of appeal without unreasonable delay, would suffer substantial loss if the permanent injunction ordering him to vacate land occupied for 27 years was executed, and that a stay would preserve the subject matter of the appeal.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted conditional on deposit of security; appeal proceedings may continue

Facts

In 1996, the applicant Nabimanya Nathan purchased land from Yokana Nsubuga, the administrator of the estate of the late Yonasani Nseribetya. The applicant took possession in August 1996, established his homestead, and developed the land with permanent structures, a dam, banana plantation, and livestock facilities. He lodged a caveat on the title in April 1997. In 2020, the respondents sued for ownership of the same land in Civil Suit No. 635 of 2020. The High Court entered judgment for the respondents on 20 October 2023, issuing a permanent injunction restraining the applicant from occupying the land and ordering him to vacate within 3 months. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 30 October 2023 and this application for stay of execution on 31 January 2024. The 1st respondent filed an affidavit in reply out of time, which the court struck out.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a pending appeal.
  2. Whether substantial loss may result if the order for stay of execution is denied.
  3. Whether there was unreasonable delay in filing the application.
  4. Whether the applicant should furnish security for due performance of the decree.

Orders

  • Application granted on condition that the applicant deposits in court UGX 25,000,000 as security for due performance of the decree within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this ruling.
  • Miscellaneous Application No. 231 of 2024 for an interim stay of execution is hereby overtaken by events.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
An applicant seeking a stay of execution pending appeal must demonstrate: (a) that a notice of appeal has been lodged; (b) that substantial loss may result unless stay is granted; (c) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (d) that security for due performance of the decree has been or will be furnished.
Stay of Execution — Notice of Appeal as Sufficient Foundation
A notice of appeal is a sufficient expression of an intention to file an appeal and such an action is sufficient to found the basis for grant of orders of stay in appropriate cases.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Meaning and Proof
Substantial loss for purposes of a stay application cannot mean ordinary loss or the decretal sum or costs which must be settled by the losing party but something more than that. The applicant should go beyond vague and general assertions of substantial loss. Where the subject matter is property capable of permanent alienation and therefore capable of causing the appeal to be nugatory, the court will exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant to preserve the benefit of the appeal.
Stay of Execution — Unreasonable Delay
An intended appellant who has filed a notice of appeal should be able to apply for a stay of execution as soon as possible and not have to wait until the appeal is lodged. Owing to delays in obtaining certified proceedings, it may be many months before an appeal can be lodged; in the meantime, execution of the decision could cause irreparable loss. An application filed two months after judgment, and shortly after the notice of appeal, does not constitute unreasonable delay.
Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance
The requirement for payment of security for costs is to ensure that a losing party does not intentionally delay execution while hiding under unnecessary applications. A party seeking a stay should be prepared to meet the conditions for furnishing security for due performance of the decree.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (9)

  • Singh v Runda Coffee Estates Limited [1966] EA 263
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (SCCA No. 18 of 1990)
  • Hon Theodore Ssekikubo & others v Attorney General & others (Constitutional Application No. 003 of 2014)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda v The East African Law Society & Another (EACA Application No. 1 of 2013)
  • Andrew Kisawuzi v Dan Oundo Malingu (HCMA 467 of 2013)
  • P.K Sengendo v Busulwa Lawrence & Another (CACA 207 of 2014)
  • Ujagar Singh v Runda Coffee Estates Ltd [1966] EA 263
  • Sewankambo Dickson v Ziwa Abby (HCMA 178 of 2005)
  • Musiitwa v Eunice Busingye (CA No. 18 of 1990)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nabimanya_v_Lameck_&_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_228_of_2024)_[2024]_UGHCLD_99_(2_April_2024)
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.