Wakilii

Oryema v Odota & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 16 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 1113 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal to Court of Appeal, arising from High Court Civil Appeal No. 022/2014
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

Held that the applicant failed to establish sufficient cause for stay of execution. Although a pending appeal existed, there was no evidence of imminent threat of execution four years after judgment, no irreparable loss demonstrated, and substantial delay of four years in filing the application. The application was dismissed with each party to bear own costs.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The applicant sought stay of execution of a High Court judgment delivered on 22 May 2020 pending disposal of an appeal filed in the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 062/2022). The application was filed on 12 April 2024, four years after the judgment. The applicant claimed the respondents were cultivating on the suit land and destroying vegetation, threatening her with eviction and irreparable loss. The respondents opposed, stating they had lived on the land for five decades, no execution proceedings had commenced, the bills of costs remained untaxed, and the applicant was not in occupation of the suit land. The original suit was in trespass seeking vacant possession.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has established sufficient cause for the Court to judiciously exercise its discretion and grant an Order for stay of execution of the Judgment and Order in High Court Civil Appeal No. 022/2014.

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No. 016/2024 is hereby dismissed.
  • Each Party shall bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements for Grant
An application for stay of execution must be founded on credible grounds establishing sufficient cause to enable the court to judiciously exercise its discretion under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Imminent Threat of Execution
An applicant must demonstrate an imminent threat of execution with irreparable injury or substantial loss likely to be occasioned. Mere speculation without evidence of formal or affirmative steps to commence execution is insufficient to establish this ground.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Delay in Filing Application
An application for stay of execution filed four years after delivery of the judgment and decree constitutes substantial delay and militates against grant of the application, particularly where no formal execution proceedings have been commenced during that period.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and 3 Others v The Attorney General and 4 Others (Supreme Court Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Onyango Olweny Galdino and 4 Others v Odongo Marino and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 79 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Oryema v Odota & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 16 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1113 (27 December 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.