Wakilii

Nakamatte Namusisi Justine v Stephen Bamwanga and Others [2026] UGHCLD 54

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for stay of execution of orders arising from an earlier miscellaneous application, pending determination of a review application
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed; respondents at liberty to execute

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 court dismissed an application for stay of execution brought pending determination of an application for review. Applying the conditions for stay under Order 22 rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court held that although a substantive review application was pending and had been filed without unreasonable delay, the applicant had shown no error apparent on the face of the record or newly discovered evidence under Order 46 rule 1. Review cannot be used as a disguised appeal or to re-argue determined matters. Because the review application lacked reasonable prospects of success, refusal of stay would not render it nugatory, and the balance of convenience favoured the successful party enjoying the fruits of the ruling.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed; respondents at liberty to execute

Facts

The applicant, administrator of the estate of the late Edward Nsereko and Akula Ssematimba, sought a stay of execution of orders arising from a ruling delivered on 3 December 2025 in Miscellaneous Application No. 1941 of 2025, which had disposed of Civil Suit No. 711 of 2020 on a preliminary objection that the suit disclosed no cause of action and was barred by limitation. She had filed Miscellaneous Application No. 2504 of 2025 on 10 December 2025 seeking review of that ruling, and asserted that the respondents, who had written to court on 4 December 2025 requesting rectification of errors in the ruling, intended to execute, which would cause her irreparable damage. The first respondent replied that there was no competent review application, that no error apparent on the face of the record existed, that the applicant was using review as a substitute for an appeal, and that the application was speculative, brought in bad faith and an abuse of process aimed at delaying justice and depriving the respondents of the fruits of the ruling.

Issues

  1. Whether this was a proper case for stay of execution of the orders arising from the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 1941 of 2025.
  2. What remedies were available to the parties.

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution of the orders arising from Misc. Application No. 1941 of 2025 is dismissed.
  • The Respondents are at liberty to proceed with execution in accordance with the law.
  • Costs of this application are awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant under Order 22 rule 23
An applicant for stay of execution must show a pending appeal or substantive application with a likelihood of success, that the appeal or application would be rendered nugatory if stay is refused, or failing those, that the balance of convenience favours a stay, and that the application was filed without unreasonable delay.
Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on the Face of the Record — Review Not a Disguised Appeal
Review under Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules is available only on discovery of new and important matter or evidence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason; it cannot be used as an appeal in disguise or to re-argue matters already determined merely because a party is dissatisfied with the decision.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Nugatory Ground Dependent on Prospects of Success
The argument that execution would render a pending application nugatory must be weighed against the prospects of success of that application; where those prospects are weak, refusal of a stay will not be treated as rendering the pending application nugatory.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Balance of Convenience — Fruits of Judgment
Where an applicant fails to show that the pending application has a likelihood of success, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of allowing the successful party to enjoy the fruits of the judgment, since litigation must come to an end.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.23(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 rr.1 & 2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.1

Cases cited (2)

  • Mugambe Steven v Ernest Ssensalire Semakade and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 2907 of 2023)
  • Olula and 31 Others v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 0068 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakamatte Namusisi Justine v Stephen Bamwanga and Others [2026] UGHCLD 54 (16 March 2026)
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.