Wakilii

Namatovu v Nakakande & Another (Miscellaneous Application 1473 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 447 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution and setting aside of judgment pending appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court to High Court Land Division
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to respondents

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 dismissed an application for stay of execution pending appeal. The applicant failed to demonstrate a serious threat of execution or actual steps taken by respondents to execute the decree. While the applicant proved the existence of a notice of appeal, she did not satisfy the requirement of showing substantial loss, as there was no evidence of any pending application for execution. The court held that stay of execution should not be ordered where there is no evidence of an application for execution of the decree.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to respondents

Facts

The applicant, administrator of the late Matovu David's estate, filed an application seeking to set aside judgment and stay execution of orders in Civil Suit No. 048 of 2020 from the Chief Magistrate Court pending determination of an appeal before the High Court. The decree dated 13 July 2023 had awarded the respondents an order to demolish toilets and bathrooms on the suit land within 30 days. The applicant claimed there was a serious threat of execution and that demolishing the infrastructure would affect income from rentals. The 2nd respondent denied any attempt to execute the decree and stated there was no pending execution before court. No representation appeared for the respondents at the hearing despite service.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to warrant stay of execution pending appeal?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Requirements — Substantial Loss
An applicant seeking stay of execution pending appeal must satisfy four cumulative conditions: (1) that an appeal has been lodged, (2) that substantial loss may result unless stay is granted, (3) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay, and (4) that security has been given for performance of the decree.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Meaning
The phrase 'substantial loss' does not represent any particular amount or size and cannot be qualified by any particular mathematical formula; it refers to any great loss or small of real worth or value as distinguished from a loss that is merely nominal.
Stay of Execution — Requirement for Evidence of Pending Execution
Courts should not order a stay of execution where there is no evidence of an application for execution of the decree. Once an appeal is pending and there is a serious threat of execution, the court intervenes to serve the purpose of substantive justice.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (4)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Baguma Paul t/a Panache Associates v Eng Karuma Kagyina (Miscellaneous Application No. 460 of 2020)
  • Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tadjudin Hussein and Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 79 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Namatovu_v_Nakakande_&_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_1473_of_2023)_[2023]_UGHCLD_447_(30_November_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.