Nkengero & Another v Nasuuna & Another (Miscellaneous Application 128 of 2023)

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.

Holding

An application for stay of execution must satisfy established conditions including showing that substantial loss will result unless the stay is made. The applicants failed to adduce evidence of irreparable loss that cannot be compensated in monetary terms. Speculative allegations without supporting evidence are insufficient. Where the registered proprietor is in lawful possession and using the land, and execution of the underlying orders would not be interfered with, the applicants are more likely to suffer if the stay is granted than the respondent if it is refused.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The applicants, claiming to be beneficiaries to the estate of the late Maliya Ntanya, had filed Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2023 challenging orders made in Miscellaneous Application No. 339 of 2022. They sought stay of execution of those orders pending appeal. The applicants alleged the 1st respondent threatened to execute by removing their caveat and had written to the district surveyor to survey and open boundaries. The 1st respondent is executrix of the late Rev Sr Dorothy Maliya Mary Ntaanya who held Mailo Certificate No. 18764 registered on 19 April 1961 over land at Busanga, Mukono. The land had been subleased for 99 years from 1924. After the lease expired in 2023, the respondent planted maize on the land. The applicants contended this changed the status quo. A locus visit found the land bushy with no signs of cultivation or cattle rearing as the applicants had claimed.

Issues

1. Whether substantial loss would result to the applicants unless the order of stay of execution is made.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71 Order 22 rule 23
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71 Order 22 rule 89
• Judicature Act s.33
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 4(3)

Cases cited (2)

• Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businge (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
• Tropical commodities supplies ltd and 2 ors v international credit bank ltd

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