Nahurira aka Kashaba and 2 Others v Lwanga (Miscellaneous Application 986 of 2023)

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 High Court dismissed an application for stay of execution pending appeal. The court held that Order 22 rule 23(1) does not apply where the application is before the same court that passed the order. The applicants failed to satisfy the requirements under Order 43 rule 4(3): they did not demonstrate substantial loss beyond vague assertions, filed the application a year after lodging the notice of appeal without explanation, and did not furnish security for costs. The application was deemed an afterthought to frustrate execution proceedings.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The applicants sought stay of execution of a ruling delivered on 13 June 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No. 1874 of 2021, which condemned them to fines and punitive damages totalling UGX 74,835,600. The second and third applicants filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 782 of 2023) on 10 May 2023. The respondent filed for execution in Miscellaneous Application No. 64 of 2023. The applicants filed the present stay application on the basis of imminent execution, arguing that the appeal had merit because the trial court relied on unauthenticated video evidence. The respondent opposed, arguing that the applicants failed to deposit decretal sums, that the video evidence was properly filed and served, and that the application was brought to waste time and frustrate execution.

Issues

1. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. Whether Order 22 rule 23(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules applies where the application is before the same court that passed the order being appealed.
3. Whether the applicants demonstrated that substantial loss would result if stay of execution is not granted.
4. Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay.
5. Whether the applicants furnished or offered security for due performance of the decree.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Judicature Act Cap.13 s.33
• Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.34(1)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 22 rule 23(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 4(3)

Cases cited (6)

• Nansubuga Aida Nalule & Another v Sebuliba Dada (Miscellaneous Application No. 836 of 2021)
• Lawrence Musituta Kyazze v Eunice Businge (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
• Hon Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
• Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd & 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
• P.K Sengendo v Busulua Laurence & Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 207 of 2014)
• Andrew Kisautuzl v Dan Oundo (Miscellaneous Application No. 467 of 2013)

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.

• Kyolaba Catherine and Another v Angelina Kagere Lubowa and Others (Miscellaneous Application 1014 of 2025)

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