Orech v Kabogoza (Civil Application No. 200 of 2020)

Observed later treatment

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

A single Justice of the Court of Appeal dismissed an application for an interim order of stay of execution. The court reiterated that, under Rule 42 of the Court of Appeal Rules and the principles in Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze, such applications should ordinarily be filed first in the High Court, save in rare and exceptional circumstances, none of which were shown. Although the court proceeded to consider the merits, it found that while a notice of appeal and a substantive application were on record, the applicant failed to prove a serious threat of execution: no decree had been extracted, no warrant obtained and no notice to show cause served. As the most important condition was absent, the application was dismissed with costs to abide the cause.

Outcome

Application for interim order of stay of execution dismissed; costs to abide the cause

Facts

The applicant sued the respondent in HCCS No. 106 of 2011 at Kampala. The suit was dismissed on a preliminary objection on grounds of res judicata, and the applicant filed Civil Appeal No. 99 of 2018. During the pendency of a counterclaim in HCCS No. 106 of 2011, the respondent partially evicted the applicant on a warrant from Nakawa Civil Suit 234 of 2011. The applicant obtained an unconditional stay of execution pending disposal of Civil Appeal No. 99 of 2018. On 4 June 2020, judgment in the counterclaim was delivered in favour of the respondent, granting him vacant possession. Dissatisfied, the applicant filed a notice of appeal and Miscellaneous Application No. 199 of 2020 to stay execution, and this interim application. The applicant alleged a serious threat of execution and risk of being rendered homeless, while the respondent contended no decree had been extracted, no warrant obtained and no execution proceedings undertaken.

Issues

1. Whether the application for an interim order of stay of execution was properly filed first in the Court of Appeal rather than in the High Court.
2. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of an interim order of stay of execution, particularly a serious threat of execution.

Orders

• The application is dismissed.
• Costs shall abide the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.98
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.43(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.44(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.42
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.72
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.76
• Judicature Act Cap.13 s.12

Cases cited (6)

• Crane Bank Limited v Belex Tours and Travel Ltd (Miscellaneous Applications No. 343 and 345 of 2013)
• Joel B Kato v Nuulu Nalwoga (Civil Application No. 12 of 2011)
• Hwan Sung Industries v Tajdan Hussein (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
• E.B. Nyakaana and Sons Limited v Beatrice Kobusinge (Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2017)
• Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
• Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Karago Construction & Engineering Limited v Emmaus Foundation Investment (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Application 122 of 2025)

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