Wakilii

Obomba v Ovon (Miscellaneous Application 141 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 801 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal from Magistrate Grade I decision in land suit
Decision
Stay of execution granted conditionally; applicant must furnish security for due performance of the decree in the underlying land suit

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 of a land suit decree pending appeal on condition that the applicant furnish security for due performance of the decree. The court held that the applicant satisfied three of the four statutory conditions for stay of execution under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules: an appeal was lodged, substantial loss would result if execution proceeded, and the application was made without unreasonable delay. The requirement to furnish security had not yet been satisfied, but the court exercised its discretion to grant the stay conditionally.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted conditionally; applicant must furnish security for due performance of the decree in the underlying land suit

Facts

The applicant sought stay of execution of a decree in Land Suit No. 0031 of 2018 pending determination of Civil Appeal No. 0028 of 2023 which he had filed against the judgment of the Magistrate Grade I of Nebbi. The decree ordered the applicant to give vacant possession of suit land. A notice of eviction had been issued and the respondent threatened to execute the decree before the appeal was heard. The respondent's bill of costs had been taxed at UGX 2,695,000 but the applicant had not deposited security for the taxed costs. The applicant stated readiness to furnish security but had not yet done so. The respondent contended that the applicant had no likelihood of success and sought to delay execution.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant can be granted the application for stay of execution.
  2. Whether the applicant should furnish security for costs.
  3. Whether there is remedy available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application allowed and stay of execution issued on condition that the applicant gives security for due performance of the decree binding on him in Civil Suit No. 0031 of 2018.
  • Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Statutory Conditions — Order 43 Rule 4(3) CPR
An applicant seeking stay of execution must satisfy four conditions: (a) that an appeal has been lodged; (b) that substantial loss may result unless stay is granted; (c) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (d) that the applicant has given security for due performance of the decree.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Meaning and Application
The phrase 'substantial loss' does not represent any particular amount or size nor can it be qualified by any mathematical formula; it refers to any loss great or small of real worth or value as distinguished from a loss that is merely nominal.
Stay of Execution — Pending Appeal — Threat of Execution
Where there is a pending appeal and a serious threat of execution before hearing the appeal, the court should intervene to serve the purpose of substantive justice, as execution would render the appeal moot and cause substantial loss to the appellant.
Stay of Execution — Security for Costs — Judicial Discretion
While security for costs is a condition for stay of execution, courts may exercise discretion to grant stay conditionally where the applicant has satisfied most other grounds and conditions, requiring that security be furnished as a condition of the order.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.4
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.5
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.4(3)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.26 r.1
  • Judicature Act s.33

Cases cited (8)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businge (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Ssekikubo v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Gapco Uganda Ltd v Kaweesa (Miscellaneous Application No. 259 of 2013)
  • Ssekikubo v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Singh vs Runda Cottee Estates ltd (1996) EA 263
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd & 2 others Vs International Credit Bank ltd (in liquidation) (2004) 2 EA 331
  • Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tadjaudin Hussein (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2008)
  • John Baptist Kawanga v Namyalo Kevina (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Obomba v Ovon (Miscellaneous Application 141 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 801 (29 August 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.