Wakilii

Pakwa Sowali and Others v Ntowe Rashid (Miscellaneous Application 44 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 690 · 2026 Application Granted 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
Decision
Stay of execution granted conditionally upon deposit of security

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 granted a stay of execution conditional on the applicants depositing UGX 10,000,000 as security within thirty days. The court held that applicants satisfied the requirements for stay under Order 43 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules: they filed a notice of appeal, faced imminent execution through arrest warrants, would suffer substantial loss through dispossession from their homes on the disputed land, and filed without unreasonable delay. The security requirement was imposed to ensure diligent prosecution of the intended appeal.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted conditionally upon deposit of security

Facts

The Respondent obtained judgment in his favour in Civil Suit No. 15 of 2023 in Budaka Magistrates' Court on 17 January 2024. The Applicants unsuccessfully appealed to the High Court (Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2024), with judgment delivered on 7 November 2024. The Applicants filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal on 20 November 2024 and requested certified copies of the record of proceedings. Meanwhile, the Respondent filed bills of costs in both courts. The lower court bill was taxed ex parte, a notice to show cause was issued, and a warrant of arrest was issued against the Applicants on 11 March 2025. The Applicants established their homes on the disputed land and faced dispossession. The Respondent contended that the Applicants employed delay tactics, failed to attend taxation hearings despite service, and failed to file a memorandum of appeal within the statutory period.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants have lodged a notice of appeal?
  2. Whether there is a serious or imminent threat of execution of the decree or order?
  3. Whether the Applicants would suffer substantial loss?
  4. Whether the application has been made without unreasonable delay?
  5. Whether the appeal has a high likelihood of success?

Orders

  • An order for stay of execution restraining the Respondent, his agents, and anyone claiming under him from executing the orders emanating from judgment and decrees in Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2024 and Civil Suit No. 15 of 2023.
  • The Applicants shall deposit UGX 10,000,000 (Ten million shillings) as security for due performance of the decree in Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2024 and Civil Suit No. 15 of 2023.
  • The security shall be deposited within thirty (30) days from 29 June 2026.
  • If the applicants fail to make the said deposit, the decrees in Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2024 and Civil Suit No. 15 of 2023 shall be liable for execution.
  • Costs of this application are awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
Under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, no order for stay of execution shall be made unless the court is satisfied that: (a) substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made; (b) the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (c) security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of the decree.
Stay of Execution — Proof of Lodgment of Notice of Appeal
At the stage of applying for stay of execution, the law requires only proof of lodgment of a notice of appeal; failure to file a memorandum of appeal thereafter does not preclude the grant of stay.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Meaning and Scope
Substantial loss does not represent any particular amount or size but refers to any loss, great or small, of real worth or value as distinguished from merely nominal loss. Dispossession from land on which applicants have established their homesteads constitutes substantial loss justifying a stay of execution.
Stay of Execution — Purpose and Principle
An application for stay of execution pending appeal is designed to preserve the subject matter in dispute so that the right of the appellant who is exercising his undoubted right of appeal is safeguarded and the appeal, if successful, is not rendered nugatory.
Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success
It is not necessary for applicants to demonstrate the possibility of success of the appeal, but they must prove that the appeal is not frivolous and vexatious and that it raises serious questions of law and fact.
Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Discretion
Where applicants may be employing the appellate process as a means of delaying the respondent from enjoying the fruits of successful litigation, the court may order deposit of security to ensure diligent prosecution of the intended appeal.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (10)

  • Hon. Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Dr. Ahmed Muhammed Kasule v Greenland Bank in Receivership (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 7 of 2010)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd & 2 others Vs. International Credit Bank (In liquidation) 2004 EA 331
  • Orute Aloysius and 4 Others v Alupo Esther (Civil Application No. 960 of 2023)
  • Absalom Dova, Vs Tarbo Transporters [2013] eKLR
  • Wilson Mukiibi v James Semusambwa (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9 of 2003)
  • Wilson Vs. Church (1879) volume 12 Ch.D. 454
  • Global Capital Save 2004 Ltd and Another v Alice Okiror and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 485 of 2012)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • The Annot Lyle (1886) II PD 114 at 116

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Pakwa Sowali and Others v Ntowe Rashid (Miscellaneous Application 44 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 690 (29 June 2026)
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.