Wakilii

Nzeirwe v Orikiriza (Miscellaneous Application 21 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 836 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal to the Court of Appeal
Decision
Stay of execution granted conditionally upon deposit of security within 45 days

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

Held that wrong citation of law does not invalidate proceedings where the court has jurisdiction. Stay of execution granted on condition that applicant deposits security for costs within 45 days. Court applied Order 43 Rule 4(3) requirements: substantial loss established given scarcity of land in Kigezi; reasonable delay shown as application filed within one month of execution proceedings; security for due performance ordered at UGX 5,154,200 to protect respondent's costs.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted conditionally upon deposit of security within 45 days

Facts

The applicant was dissatisfied with the judgment and decree in Civil Appeal No. 0001 of 2022 and filed a notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal to the Court of Appeal. The respondent commenced execution proceedings seeking vacant possession of suit land and filed a notice to show cause why a warrant of arrest/attachment and sale should not issue. The applicant sought stay of execution pending determination of the appeal, arguing she would suffer substantial loss as her land would be attached and alienated. The respondent's bill of costs from the earlier appeal had been taxed at UGX 5,154,200.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution was competently brought under the correct provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Stay of execution granted restraining the respondent, their agents, servants, employees, and anyone acting under them from executing the decree in HCCA No. 0001 of 2022 until determination of Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 0079 of 2023.
  • Applicant to deposit security for due performance of the decree in the sum of UGX 5,154,200 within 45 days of the ruling.
  • In the event of default in depositing security, execution of the decree in HCCA No. 0001 of 2022 shall commence.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Wrong Citation of Law — Effect on Validity of Proceedings
Wrong citation of law or wrong procedure does not invalidate proceedings where the court has jurisdiction to grant the order sought and the irregularity or omission causes no prejudice to the opposite party.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements — Substantial Loss
In determining whether substantial loss will result for purposes of granting stay of execution, the court considers the nature of the property and difficulty of replacement; land in regions where it is a scarce resource such as Kigezi will constitute substantial loss if the applicant would find it difficult to replace even if successful on appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Costs — Purpose and Determination
The purpose of an order for security for costs on an appeal is to ensure that a respondent is protected for costs incurred in responding to the appeal and defending the proceedings; the taxed costs from the lower court appeal provide appropriate measure for security to be deposited.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (2)

  • Saggu v Road Master Cycles (U) Ltd [2002] 1 EA 258
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Dr Ann Persis Makate Lussejere (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nzeirwe v Orikiriza (Miscellaneous Application 21 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 836 (5 September 2024)
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.