Obwatan v Wakholi and Others (HCMA 180 of 2020)

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

Held that an application for stay of execution cannot be granted where there is no existing application for execution of the decree on record. While the applicant demonstrated that an appeal had been filed without unreasonable delay and raised arguable grounds, the absence of any formal execution proceedings meant there was no imminent threat of execution to justify a stay order. The alleged illegal activities by the respondents on the suit land were matters for police and local authorities, not grounds for stay of execution absent formal execution proceedings.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed; applicant may pursue other remedies for alleged illegal activities

Facts

The applicant was the unsuccessful party in Civil Suit No. 006 of 2018 in the Magistrate's Court Grade One Bukedea. Judgment was delivered on 6 December 2022. The applicant filed a memorandum of appeal on 12 December 2022 and this application for stay of execution on 15 December 2022. The applicant alleged that respondents had entered the suit land on 7 December 2022, uprooted his cassava, and continued to conduct activities on the land. He reported the matter to police and had three respondents arrested. The applicant claimed he was in possession of the suit land with crops thereon. The respondents contended they had been on the suit land prior to the institution of the original civil suit and that the land was their only source of livelihood. Critically, the respondents had not filed any application for execution of the decree from Civil Suit No. 006 of 2018.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant has lodged a notice of appeal.
2. Whether there is a likelihood of success in the applicant's pending appeal.
3. Whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss if stay of execution is not granted.
4. Whether the application has been made without unreasonable delay.
5. Whether security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of the decree.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs to abide the outcome of the pending appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 22 rule 23
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 4
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rules 1, 2 and 3
• Judicature Act s.14
• Judicature Act s.33
• Judicature Act s.38
• Judicature Act s.39

Cases cited (7)

• Ujagar Singh v Runda Coffee Estates Ltd [1966] 1 EA 263
• Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businge (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
• Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
• GAPCO Uganda Ltd v Kaweesa and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 259 of 2013)
• Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
• Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tadjaudin Hussein and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2008)
• Baguma Paul t/a Panache Associates v Eng. Karuma Kagyina (Miscellaneous Application No. 460 of 2020)

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