Park View Limited and Bharat Properties Limited v Kasai Abdul and Departed Asians Custodian Board (Civil Application No.567 of 2026)
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
A single Justice of the Court of Appeal granted a stay of execution pending appeal. Applying the Ssekikubo principles, the court held the appeal raised non-frivolous, non-vexatious grounds with a likelihood of success; that the applicants would suffer substantial loss, which need not be monetary, given the threatened demolition of the suit property and disconnection of utilities that altered the status quo beyond the terms of the decree; and that the application was filed without undue delay, the law requiring a prior application in the High Court. The preliminary objection based on a pending reinstatement application was overruled. The judgment and decree in HCCS No. 894 of 2021 were stayed pending Civil Appeal No. 786 of 2025.
Outcome
Application granted; execution of the High Court judgment and decree in HCCS No. 894 of 2021 stayed pending the determination of Civil Appeal No. 786 of 2025.
Facts
The applicants filed High Court Civil Suit No. 894 of 2021 seeking a declaration that they were the rightful owners of property on Plot 98-104 Nakivubo Road, claiming lawful repossession under the Expropriated Properties Act, plus cancellation of the 1st respondent's certificate of title, a permanent injunction, general damages and costs. On 22 October 2025 the High Court (Land Division) found the alleged repossession did not occur, declared the 1st respondent the lawful owner, issued a permanent injunction restraining the applicants, and awarded costs. The applicants filed Civil Appeal No. 786 of 2025, which is pending. Their High Court application for stay (Miscellaneous Application No. 2382 of 2025) was dismissed. Pending the appeal, the 1st respondent extracted a decree, engaged occupants to execute tenancy agreements and pay rent, disconnected water and arranged disconnection of power, and indicated the property would be demolished for new developments. Twenty-four families, shareholders in the applicant companies, had occupied the premises for about 30 years.
Issues
- Whether the pending appeal has a likelihood of success.
- Whether the applicants would suffer substantial or irreparable loss, or the appeal be rendered nugatory, if a stay is not granted.
- Whether the application for stay was brought without undue delay.
- Whether the application should be dismissed on the preliminary objection that a separate application to reinstate an earlier dismissed application is pending.
Orders
- The judgment and decree in HCCS No. 894 of 2021 is hereby stayed pending the determination of Civil Appeal No. 786 of 2025 by this Court.
- Civil Application No. 687 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed since it has been overtaken by events.
- Costs of the application shall abide by the outcome of Civil Appeal No. 786 of 2025.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
Cases cited (4)
- Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v Attorney General & Another [2013] UGSC 21
- Guliano Graiggio v Calaudio Casadio [2013] UGSC 17
- Haruna Sentongo v I & M Bank [2023] UGCA 167
- Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd & Others v International Credit Bank Ltd [2004] 2 E.A. 331
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.