Orute and 4 Others v Alupo (Civil Application 960 of 2023)

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

The single Justice dismissed an application for stay of execution pending appeal in a land trespass matter. Applying the established conditions, the court found the applicants had lodged a valid notice of appeal without unreasonable delay, but had not shown substantial or irreparable loss: their cultivation of and residence on the disputed land could be compensated by an award of damages should the appeal succeed. The court also held the applicants failed to demonstrate that the appeal raised serious questions of law or fact, or that it was not frivolous and vexatious. Having failed to meet the more pertinent conditions, the application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed; execution of the High Court decree not stayed

Facts

The respondent, as administrator and beneficiary of the estate of the late Seno Aaron, sued the applicants in High Court Civil Suit No. 003 of 2017, alleging trespass on disputed land and seeking a permanent injunction, general damages and costs. Judgment was entered in favour of the respondent. The applicants filed Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2023 against that decision and brought this application to stay execution of the High Court orders pending the appeal. The applicants averred that the first, third and fourth applicants occupy and cultivate the suit land, that the second applicant has a family home on it, and that the respondent was threatening to evict them. The High Court had dismissed an earlier application for stay on 16 August 2023, and this application was filed on 25 August 2023.

Issues

1. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal.
2. Whether the applicants would suffer substantial or irreparable loss if a stay were not granted.
3. Whether the intended appeal has a likelihood of success.

Orders

• The application for stay of execution is dismissed.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) (Directions) SI 13-10 r.6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) (Directions) SI 13-10 r.43
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) (Directions) SI 13-10 r.76

Cases cited (5)

• Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
• Absalom Dova v Tarbo Transporters [2013] eKLR
• Wilson Mukiibi v James Semusambwa (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2003)
• American Cyanamid Co Ltd v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
• The Annot Lyle (1886) 11 PD 114

Cases citing this judgment (6)

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.

• M/S Mukono Bookshop Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd v Magdalene Lamwaka (Miscellaneous Application No. 845 of 2025)
• Abbas Ndamwe and Others v Selina Mutonyi and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 216 of 2024) followed
• Veronica Athago and Another v Obbo Christopher (Miscellaneous Application No. 387 of 2023)
• Masette Stephen and Another v Khainza Hellen (Miscellaneous Application No. 60 of 2025) followed
• Ali Hussein and Another v Mustafa Semih Gecgil (Miscellaneous Application No. 266 of 2024)
• Kigongo Gerald and Another v Kawuki Ssali Flugence and Others (Consolidated Civil Suits No. 88 of 2016 and No. 2 of 2018)

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