Wakilii

Ndoboli Dan v Kibuku District Local Government (Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 681 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of judgment in Miscellaneous Cause No. 13 of 2024 pending appeal to the Court of Appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution refused

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

Application for stay of execution dismissed. The court held that filing a notice of appeal without taking further steps to prosecute the appeal for over one year is insufficient to establish a pending appeal. The applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss, particularly where more than a year had elapsed since the advertised position closed and no evidence showed the position remained vacant.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution refused

Facts

The applicant instituted Miscellaneous Cause No. 13 of 2024 seeking judicial review, which was dismissed by the High Court. Dissatisfied with the decision delivered on 10 February 2025, the applicant filed a notice of appeal on 21 February 2025 and requested certified copies of the record. On 24 February 2025, the respondent advertised a vacancy for Senior Assistant Secretary U3 (Lower), the position that was the subject of the dismissed judicial review application. The advertisement closed on 19 March 2025. The applicant then brought this application seeking to stay execution of the judgment and restrain the respondent from conducting interviews and making an appointment pending the appeal. By the time of the ruling in June 2026, more than one year and four months had elapsed since the notice of appeal was filed, with no further steps taken by the applicant to prosecute the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the application discloses grounds for a stay of execution.
  2. Whether the applicant lodged a notice of appeal establishing a prima facie case with likelihood of success.
  3. Whether substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the application is granted.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements for Grant
For an application for stay of execution to be granted, the applicant must show that a notice of appeal has been lodged, that substantial loss may result unless the stay is granted, that the application has been made without unreasonable delay, and that security has been given for due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon the applicant.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Pending Appeal — Prosecution of Appeal
The filing of a notice of appeal, without any subsequent action towards instituting or prosecuting the appeal for more than one year, is insufficient to establish the existence of a pending appeal for purposes of an application for stay of execution. An appellant must take meaningful steps to prosecute the intended appeal and not remain dormant after filing the notice.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Proof Required
Substantial loss means loss of real worth or value that is irreparable, cannot be undone once inflicted, and cannot be adequately atoned for in damages. It does not mean the ordinary loss to which every judgment debtor is necessarily subjected when losing a case. An applicant must adduce evidence to substantiate the claim of substantial loss, not merely assert it.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Lapse of Time — Effect on Application
Where more than one year has elapsed since the advertised position closed and the applicant provides no evidence that the position remains vacant, the court may infer that the recruitment process has been concluded and the applicant has failed to establish that substantial loss will result from refusal of the stay.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (5)

  • Ssekikubo v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • M/S. Malwa Strips PVT. Ltd V. M/S. Jyoti Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 7410-7411 of 2008
  • Kyambogo University v Ndiege (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Board of Directors of Caltech Academy Makerere v Kasule (Miscellaneous Application No. 2190 of 2024)
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Cogecot Cotton Co. SA [1995-1999] EA 312

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ndoboli Dan v Kibuku District Local Government (Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 681 (22 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.