Wakilii

Odaga v Onegu (Civil Application 11 of 2023)

Court of Appeal · [2024] UGCA 287 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to a single Justice of Appeal for a stay of execution pending the determination of a civil appeal.
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed

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

On an application for a stay of execution pending appeal, the single Justice restated the established conditions: a prima facie case or likelihood of success on appeal, irreparable damage if the stay is refused, and, where those are in doubt, the balance of convenience. The applicant failed to establish likelihood of success because his affidavit contained no material supporting the assertion; counsel's submission alone was insufficient. He also failed to establish irreparable damage, as the execution was for a specified sum of money compensable in monetary terms should the appeal succeed, and he was not shown to be in possession of the disputed land. The application was dismissed.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The applicant was the plaintiff in a civil suit in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Nebbi, which was dismissed with costs as res judicata. His appeal to the High Court at Arua was dismissed, and his subsequent application to reinstate the appeal was also dismissed with costs, taxed at UGX 11,682,600. He appealed to the Court of Appeal against the High Court order. The respondent instituted execution proceedings, serving a demand notice for the taxed costs. The applicant feared eviction from disputed land and the cutting of his trees. The respondent contended the applicant had never been in possession of the suit land, having only trespassed in 2015, for which he was convicted of criminal trespass. The applicant sought a stay of execution of the magistrate's decree and the related High Court order pending the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had adduced sufficient reasons to justify the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution Pending Appeal — Governing Conditions
An applicant for a stay of execution must establish that the appeal has a likelihood of success or a prima facie right of appeal, that irreparable damage will be suffered or the appeal rendered nugatory if a stay is refused, and, where those matters are in doubt, that the balance of convenience favours a stay, and that the application was brought without delay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success — Evidential Burden
Likelihood of success is the most important consideration on an application for a stay of execution, and the applicant must place material before the court going beyond a mere statement that the appeal has a likelihood of success; an unsupported submission by counsel, with no averment in the supporting affidavit, is insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Irreparable Damage — Money Decrees
Where execution is for a specified sum of money that can be compensated in the same monetary terms should the appeal succeed, the threatened harm does not amount to irreparable damage, and a stay will not be granted on that ground.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.43
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.76
  • Civil Procedure Act s.79(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.17 r.6

Cases cited (5)

  • Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkudiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
  • Osman Kassim v Century Bottling Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2019)
  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co [1973] EA 358
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 504

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Odaga v Onegu (Civil Application 11 of 2023) [2024] UGCA 287 (3 October 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.