Wakilii

Nobert Uwizera v Dr. Pito Jjemba (Miscellaneous Application 1751 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 419 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal from judgment in Civil Suit No. 887 of 2018
Decision
Stay of execution granted conditional on security deposit

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 pending appeal from a land trespass judgment that ordered cancellation of titles and re-survey. The court found that the judgment was self-executing, creating imminent threat of execution that would render the appeal nugatory and cause substantial loss beyond ordinary judgment debtor consequences. Stay was granted conditional on the applicant depositing UGX 20,000,000 as security for due performance of the decree within thirty days.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted conditional on security deposit

Facts

The Respondent obtained judgment in Civil Suit No. 887 of 2018 for trespass, with orders cancelling subdivisions and titles created from Plot 226 and directing re-survey of the entire area to create an access road. The judgment was delivered on 15 May 2024. The Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal on 23 May 2024 and this application for stay of execution on 1 July 2024. The Respondent claimed only one decimal of his Plot 428 was enclosed in the Applicant's fence. The Applicant averred that execution would necessitate breaking his perimeter wall and part of his residential house. On 16 January 2025, surveyors from Buganda Land Board attended the suit land with the Respondent to conduct re-survey. The Respondent's counsel issued a letter dated 27 June 2024 notifying residents to cease trespass and that the Respondent was taking immediate possession.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to an order of stay of execution pending the hearing of the appeal?

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Applicant to deposit UGX 20,000,000 to court for due performance of the decree within thirty days of this ruling.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Self-Executing Judgments — Imminent Threat
Where a judgment orders cancellation of titles and re-survey of land, the judgment is self-executing and constitutes an imminent threat of execution for purposes of a stay application, even in the absence of a formal application for execution or notice to show cause.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Beyond Ordinary Judgment Debtor Consequences
Substantial loss for purposes of stay of execution refers to loss of real worth or value that is irreparable and cannot be adequately atoned for in damages, and must be beyond the ordinary loss to which every judgment debtor is necessarily subjected when deprived of property as a consequence of losing a case.
Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Discretionary Requirement
Security for costs is not a condition precedent to the grant of stay of execution, but courts may require security for due performance of the decree to protect the respondent from the risk that the applicant may not be able to satisfy the decree and to ensure costs are catered for.
Stay of Execution — Notice of Appeal — Sufficient Expression of Intention
A notice of appeal is a sufficient expression of an intention to file an appeal and such action is sufficient to found the basis for grant of orders of stay in appropriate cases.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.44 r.1(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.44 r.1(3)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.44 r.1(4)

Cases cited (18)

  • Singh v Runda Coffee Estates Ltd [1966] EA 263
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Shah v Attorney General [1971] EA 50
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekibubo and 4 Others v The Attorney General and 3 Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014) [2014] UGSC 11
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Ndiege (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Eluju Martin v Itobu Margret (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 160 of 2022)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda v The East African Law Society and Another (EACA Application No. 1 of 2013)
  • Formular Feeds Ltd and 3 Others v KCB Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Commissioner Customs Uganda Revenue Authority v Kayimba (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 62 of 2014)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (Miscellaneous Application No. 379 of 2003)
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Cogecot Cotton Co. SA [1995-1999] EA 312
  • Hoima Municipal Council v Karamagi (Miscellaneous Application No. 0032 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 138
  • Pan African Insurance Co. (U) Ltd v International Air Transport Association (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2006)
  • National Enterprise Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 1998)
  • P. K Sengendo v Busulwa Lawrence and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 207 of 2014)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Dr. Ann Persis Nakate Lussejere (Court of Appeal No. 29 of 2003)
  • Imperial Royale Hotel Ltd and 2 Others v Ochan Daniel (Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nobert_Uwizera_v_Dr._Pito_Jjemba_(Miscellaneous_Application_1751_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_419_(23_June_2025)
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.