Wakilii

Nantongo Brenda v Mwangu Nasser (Miscellaneous Application 297 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 180 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending determination of review application
Decision
Stay of execution granted pending determination of review application

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 a revision decree ordering return of distressed property, pending determination of a review application. The court held that sufficient cause was shown where the applicant raised a genuine and arguable challenge that the distressed property had been sold before the interim stay order was served, making the revision court's order for return of property impossible to comply with. The court found that the applicant would suffer substantial loss if required to return property sold to unidentifiable third parties, exposing her to contempt proceedings. No security for due performance was required in the circumstances.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted pending determination of review application

Facts

The respondent was a tenant of the applicant at rental premises in Seguku Zone 5, Wakiso District at a monthly rental of UGX 400,000. Between April and June 2021, the respondent defaulted on rental obligations, accumulating arrears of UGX 2,200,000. The applicant filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 042 of 2021 at Kajjansi Chief Magistrate's Court seeking levy of distress and eviction. On 21 December 2021, the court granted a special certificate to levy distress and an eviction order. The court bailiff executed the orders and filed a return and inventory on 23 February 2022. On 25 February 2022, the applicant's lawyers received an order stopping the levy and eviction. The respondent filed Civil Revision Cause No. 04 of 2022 which was determined in his favour on 27 September 2024, ordering the applicant to return the distressed household items. The respondent commenced execution proceedings. The applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 53 of 2024 on 21 November 2024 seeking review of the revision orders. The present application sought stay of execution pending determination of the review application.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant a stay of execution of the decree in Civil Revision Cause No. 04 of 2022.
  2. Whether the Applicant will suffer substantial loss if the stay is not granted.
  3. Whether security for due performance of the decree is required as a condition for the grant of a stay.

Orders

  • Stay of execution of the ruling and decree in Civil Revision Cause No. 04 of 2022 granted.
  • Stay of all proceedings in Execution Miscellaneous Application No. 0039 of 2025 granted pending hearing and final disposal of Miscellaneous Application No. 53 of 2024.
  • Miscellaneous Application No. 53 of 2024 to be brought on for hearing at the earliest available opportunity.
  • Parties directed to take all necessary steps to ensure expeditious fixing, hearing and determination of Miscellaneous Application No. 53 of 2024.
  • Costs of this application to be costs in the cause in Miscellaneous Application No. 53 of 2024.
  • Preliminary objection overruled.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Sufficient Cause — Pending Review Application
An application for stay of execution pending review raises a genuine and arguable challenge where the applicant demonstrates that the decree sought to be executed orders return of property that was sold before the interim stay order was served, making compliance impossible.
Stay of Execution — Functus Officio Doctrine — Review Applications
The functus officio doctrine cannot be invoked to nullify the remedy of review which is itself created by the Civil Procedure Rules under Order 46 read with section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act. The question whether a review application meets the statutory grounds is a matter to be determined on full argument in that application and not at the interlocutory stage of a stay application.
Stay of Execution — Distinction Between Stay Pending Appeal and Stay Pending Review
The principle that a competent notice of appeal is a necessary foundation for a stay pending appeal does not translate to an application for stay pending review. A stay pending review is governed by Order 22 rule 23(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules which requires sufficient cause to be shown, not the existence of a statutory right of appeal.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Impossibility of Compliance
Substantial loss within the meaning of Order 22 rule 23 means something in addition to and different from the ordinary loss that every unsuccessful litigant faces upon execution. Where a decree orders return of property that the judgment debtor cannot trace because it was sold to unidentifiable third parties, exposing the judgment debtor to contempt proceedings and civil imprisonment upon failure to comply, such loss is substantial and of real worth distinguishable from nominal loss.
Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Non-Monetary Decrees
Where the decree sought to be stayed is not a monetary decree but an order for return of specific property, requiring deposit of a monetary sum equivalent to the full decretal obligation raises valuation questions not properly before the court at the interlocutory stage. The decision whether to impose security for due performance must be made in consonance with the probability of success of the underlying challenge and the circumstances of the case, and is not warranted where the review application raises a genuine and arguable challenge.
Preliminary Objections — Mixed Questions of Law and Fact
A preliminary objection in the strict sense requires a pure point of law arising from the pleadings which if upheld disposes of the suit without recourse to evidence. A contention that an application discloses no sufficient cause and that the underlying challenge is incompetent depends upon an assessment of the affidavit evidence and the merits of the challenge, and cannot properly be disposed of at the preliminary stage without reference to the evidence on record.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (25)

  • Tiviga Chemical Industries Limited (supra)
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulamhussein Habib Viram and Another (Supreme Court Case No. 9 of 1993)
  • Patricia Mutesi v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 241 of 2016)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Company Limited v West End Distributors Limited [1969] EA 696
  • Chacha Mwita Mosenda v Baya Tsuma Baya and 2 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2014)
  • Faustine Ntambara v Benon Sebujisho (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2021)
  • Lukwago Erias v KCCA (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 6 of 2014)
  • Nile Bank Limited v Thomas Kato [1997-2001] EA 325
  • Kayondo v Attorney General [1988-1990] HCB 127
  • Ssengendo v Busulwa and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 207 of 2014)
  • Kaggwa v Kawalya-Kaggwa (Administration Cause No. 21 of 1972)
  • Kyazze v Busingye [1990] LLR 190
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and 7 Others v The Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Denicah Ainomugisha v Joy Nkabahita (Miscellaneous Application No. 555 of 2023)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Limited and 2 Others versus International Credit Bank Limited (In Liquidation)
  • Pan African Insurance Company (U) Limited v International Air Transport Association (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2006)
  • Banshidar v Pribku Dayal AIR 41 of 1954
  • Lawrence Muwanga v Stephen Kyeyune (Legal Representative of Christine Kisamba deceased) (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Limited and Others v International Credit Bank Limited (In Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 33
  • International Credit Bank Limited (In Liquidation) versus Tropical Commodities Supplies Limited and 2 Others
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • John Baptist Kawanga v Namyalo Kevina and Ssemakula Lawrence (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2017)
  • P&B Infrastructure Limited v Teddy Nanyonga (Miscellaneous Application No. 723 of 2025)
  • Sewankambo Dickson v Zziwa Abby (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 78 of 2005)
  • Editor in Chief the New Vision Newspaper v Ntabgoba (Civil Application No. 63 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nantongo Brenda v Mwangu Nasser (Miscellaneous Application 297 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 180 (8 June 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.