National Forestry Authority v Muhereza Basaliza & Ors (Misc. Application No. 380 of 2018)
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.
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 ex parte application before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal, the court held that for an interim order of stay of execution the applicant need only show that a substantive application for stay is pending and that there is a serious or imminent threat of execution before that application is heard. The court found a substantive application (Civil Application No. 379 of 2018) was pending and that the National Forestry Authority faced an imminent threat of garnishee execution against its Bank of Uganda account, which would render the appeal nugatory and threaten the forest reserve. The interim order was granted, with costs to abide the substantive application.
Outcome
Interim order granted staying further execution of the decree in HCCS No. 25 of 2013 pending disposal of the main application for stay
Facts
The respondents claimed to be customary owners of suit land inherited from their grandparents and alleged unlawful eviction by the applicant in conjunction with the Police. The applicant, the National Forestry Authority, contended the land was a gazetted forest reserve (Buhungiro Central Forest Reserve). Judgment was entered for the respondents on 15 May 2018, awarding damages and interest totalling approximately 3,312,637,700 shillings. The respondents executed by garnishee against the applicant's Stanbic Bank accounts, recovering 1,571,250,000 shillings and leaving a balance of 1,741,387,700 shillings. The respondents then sought to attach the applicant's Bank of Uganda account, obtaining a Garnishee Order Nisi on 14 January 2019. The applicant had filed a Notice of Appeal, a substantive application for stay (Civil Application No. 379 of 2018) and this interim application, the High Court having dismissed its earlier stay application (Miscellaneous Application No. 35 of 2018) on 20 August 2018.
Issues
- Whether the applicant established that there is a substantive application for stay pending, sufficient cause, and an imminent threat of execution sufficient to warrant the grant of an interim order of stay of execution.
Orders
- An interim order is issued staying the further execution of the decree and orders in High Court Civil Suit No. 25 of 2013 pending the final disposal of the main application for stay of execution.
- The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the substantive application for stay of execution.
- The Registrar is directed to cause Civil Application No. 379 of 2018 to be listed for hearing within the next 14 days.
- This order shall lapse on 5 February 2019 if Civil Application No. 379 of 2018 is not heard within 14 days.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (11)
- Judicature Act s.33
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Rules of the Court of Appeal r.2(2)
- Rules of the Court of Appeal r.6(2)(b)
- Rules of the Court of Appeal r.41(2)
- Rules of the Court of Appeal r.42(1)
- Rules of the Court of Appeal r.42(2)
- Rules of the Court of Appeal r.43(2)
- Rules of the Court of Appeal r.43
- Rules of the Court of Appeal r.44
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rr.1, 2 and 3
Cases cited (4)
- Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
- Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
- Wilson Mikiibi v James Ssemusambwa (Civil Application No. 9 of 2003)
- National Enterprise Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 1998)
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.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.