Wakilii

Osman v Dramadri & 5 Ors (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0035 of 2017)

High Court · [2017] UGHCLD 244 · 2017 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution arising from High Court Civil Appeal No. 0029 of 2012
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

The High Court dismissed an application for stay of execution where the applicant failed to file a memorandum of appeal six months after filing a notice of appeal, showed no diligence in prosecuting the appeal, and faced no actual threat of execution since the respondents had neither applied for execution nor threatened enforcement. The court held that no sufficient cause was established and there was no execution in progress to stay.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The applicant sought a stay of execution of a decision in High Court Civil Appeal No. 0029 of 2012. The underlying appeal concerned land on which the respondents had been in adverse possession since sometime after 1979 but before 1986. Both the trial court and the appellate court had held that the applicant was barred by limitation from obtaining an order of eviction. The applicant filed a notice of appeal and requested a certified copy of the record on 10 April 2017 but did not file a memorandum of appeal within six months. The applicant claimed he would be evicted from the land, rendering the appeal nugatory, but the respondents had not applied for execution or threatened enforcement of the decree. The respondents remained in possession, not the applicant.

Issues

  1. Whether sufficient cause has been shown to grant a stay of execution pending appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Sufficient Cause — Requirements
An applicant for stay of execution must demonstrate that substantial loss may result if no order for stay is made, that the application has been made without unreasonable delay, and where applicable, that security has been given for the due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding on the applicant.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Memorandum of Appeal — Necessity for Filing
An appeal in a civil matter comes into existence only upon the filing of a memorandum of appeal. Filing a notice of appeal alone without filing a memorandum of appeal is insufficient to demonstrate diligence in prosecuting an appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Where No Execution in Progress
Where respondents have neither applied for execution nor moved to file or cause taxation of their bill of costs, there is no execution in progress that ought to be stayed and any order for stay of execution is speculative.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.4
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.2
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.42(1)(b)
  • Civil Procedure Rules r.76
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Osman v Dramadri & 5 Ors (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0035 of 2017) [2017] UGHCLD 244 (24 October 2017)
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.