Wakilii

Nahurira aka kashaka and 2 Others v Lwanga (Civil Application 1021 of 2023)

Court of Appeal · [2024] UGCA 57 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for a stay of execution pending appeal, heard by a single Justice of the Court of Appeal
Decision
Stay of execution granted pending determination of Civil Appeal No. 182 of 2023

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 2 times 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

On an application to stay execution of a High Court contempt ruling pending appeal, the single Justice first overruled a preliminary objection that leave to appeal was required: the order imposing a fine for contempt was appealable as of right under section 76(1)(g) of the Civil Procedure Act. On the merits, all conditions for a stay were satisfied — a valid notice of appeal had been lodged, the appeal raised serious arguable questions (including a challenge to a consent judgment said to be vitiated and later set aside, to which the applicants were not parties yet which affected their rights), and the applicants would suffer substantial loss. Although the application was brought late, that delay was not fatal once the other conditions were met. The stay was granted.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted pending determination of Civil Appeal No. 182 of 2023

Facts

The respondent obtained a High Court ruling (Misc. Application No. 874 of 2021) finding the applicants in contempt of a court order made in Civil Suit No. 578 of 2021, and ordering them to pay a fine of UGX 10,000,000, punitive damages of UGX 3,000,000, and costs. The applicants, dissatisfied, lodged a notice of appeal on 21 June 2022 and filed Civil Appeal No. 182 of 2023. The High Court refused their application for a stay of execution, prompting this application to the Court of Appeal. The applicants contended that the consent judgment underlying the contempt proceedings — to which they were not parties but which affected their rights — had subsequently been reviewed and set aside by the trial court, giving rise to a further suit by the respondent against the registered proprietors of the suit land. They argued execution founded on a tainted consent judgment would be unjust and that they risked being unable to recover monies paid should the appeal succeed.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal was incompetent for failure to first obtain leave to appeal an order of contempt of court.
  2. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal.

Orders

  • Execution of the ruling and orders in High Court Misc. Application No. 874 of 2021 are stayed pending determination of Civil Appeal No. 182 of 2023.
  • Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Order of Contempt of Court — Whether Leave to Appeal Required
An order imposing a fine for contempt of court is an order from which an appeal lies as of right under section 76(1)(g) of the Civil Procedure Act, and no prior leave of court is required to appeal it.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution Pending Appeal — Governing Conditions
To obtain a stay of execution pending appeal an applicant must show that a notice of appeal has been lodged, that the appeal has a likelihood of success, that substantial loss may result unless the stay is granted, and that the application was brought without unreasonable delay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Burden and Standard of Proof
Substantial loss is loss that cannot be quantified by any particular monetary compensation; the onus lies on the applicant to adduce cogent evidence that refusal of a stay would be unjust, and a bare averment of loss is insufficient.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success — Arguable Appeal Standard
On an application for a stay the applicant need not demonstrate that the appeal will succeed, only that it is not frivolous or vexatious and raises serious questions of law and fact worthy of full argument; the court must avoid definitive findings that would embarrass the hearing of the main appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Delay — Effect Where Other Conditions Satisfied
Although an application for a stay of execution should be brought without unreasonable delay, delay is not necessarily fatal where the applicant has satisfied the remaining conditions for a stay, and the court retains a discretion to grant the order.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (7)

  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • American Cyanamid Co Ltd v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
  • Cotton Marketing Board v Cogecot Cotton SA (1995-1999) 1 EA 312
  • Dr Ahmmed Muhammed Kisuule v Greenland Bank (in liquidation) (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2020)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd and Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (in liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui v Tonny Ketter and 5 Others (2013) eKLR
  • Beeline Travel Care (U) Ltd and Another v Finance Trust Bank (Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2021)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Nahurira aka kashaka and 2 Others v Lwanga (Civil Application 1021 of 2023) [2024] UGCA 57 (12 March 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.