Registered Trustees, Hindu Union v Kagoro and 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 304 of 2017)
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.
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 Court of Appeal held that for an interim stay of execution it suffices to show that a substantive application is pending and that there is a serious threat of execution before the substantive application is heard. The applicant had lodged a notice of appeal, requested the record of proceedings, and filed a substantive application for stay (No. 303 of 2017). The respondent had re-entered the suit land, extracted a decree, and filed a bill of costs, indicating preparation for execution. As the subject matter was a cemetery for the union's children, releasing it would render the appeal nugatory through likely desecration. Finding special circumstances and the balance of convenience favouring the applicant, the Court granted the interim stay.
Outcome
Interim stay of execution granted pending disposal of the main application for stay of execution
Facts
The applicant, the Registered Trustees of the Hindu Union, was the plaintiff in High Court Civil Suit No. 166 of 2010 concerning land used as a burial ground for children of union members. The High Court dismissed the suit on 22 September 2017. The applicant filed a notice of appeal, requested the record of proceedings, and unsuccessfully applied to the High Court Land Division for a stay of execution. It then filed a substantive application for stay (Miscellaneous Application No. 303 of 2017) in the Court of Appeal, together with this application for an interim order. The applicant feared the first respondent would take possession of and develop the suit land, desecrating the cemetery and rendering the appeal nugatory. The respondent argued the suit land was not a cemetery, that no burial had occurred there since 1981, and that he had not yet applied for execution, though he had re-entered the land to assess damage, extracted a decree, and filed a bill of costs for taxation.
Issues
- Whether there was a serious threat of execution or other sufficient cause necessitating the grant of an interim order of stay of execution pending the hearing of the substantive application for stay.
- Whether the applicant had satisfied the conditions for the grant of an interim order of stay of execution.
Orders
- An interim order is issued staying the execution of the Judgment and orders of the High Court in Civil Suit No. 166 of 2010 delivered on 22 September 2017 pending the final disposal of the main application for stay of execution.
- The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the substantive application for stay of execution.
- The Registrar is directed to cause the hearing of Miscellaneous Application No. 303 of 2017 as soon as practicable.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 Rule 2
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 Rule 6(2)(b)
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 Rule 42(1)
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 Rule 42(2)
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 Rule 43
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 Rule 76
Cases cited (5)
- Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein and Others (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
- Wilson Mikiibi v James Ssemusambwa (Civil Application No. 9 of 2003)
- Teddy Sseezi Cheeye and Another v Enos Tumusiime (Civil Application No. 21 of 1996)
- National Enterprise Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 1998)
- Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze versus Eunice (supra)
Cases citing this judgment (1)
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.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.