Wakilii

Rutenta Joselyne v Muhereza Yason (Miscellaneous Application No. 1195 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 103 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of judgment pending appeal to the Court of Appeal
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 the application for stay of execution pending appeal. The court found that while the applicant had lodged a notice of appeal, she failed to establish that she would suffer substantial loss if the stay was not granted, failed to demonstrate that the respondent could not refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded, and failed to provide security for the due performance of the decree as required under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The applicant sought to stay execution of a judgment in Civil Suit No. 382 of 2018 pending her appeal to the Court of Appeal. The underlying suit concerned a sale agreement for property in Kyadondo Block 243 Plot 1403 at Luzira Nakawa between the respondent and J&J Trading Company Limited, of which the applicant was a director. The suit had proceeded exparte against the applicant due to alleged non-service. The applicant's subsequent application to set aside the exparte judgment was dismissed after the court found she had been served. The respondent commenced execution proceedings including filing a bill of costs and an application for execution. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 17 September 2024 and this application for stay on 18 November 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has lodged a valid notice of appeal.
  2. Whether the applicant's appeal has a likelihood of success.
  3. Whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss if stay of execution is not granted.
  4. Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay.
  5. Whether the applicant has provided security for the due performance of the decree.

Orders

  • Application denied and dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements under Order 43 Rule 4(3) CPR
An applicant seeking stay of execution pending appeal must satisfy the court that substantial loss may result unless the order is made, that the application has been made without unreasonable delay, and that security has been given for the due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon the applicant.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Inherent Jurisdiction of High Court
The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution of its own decree pending an appeal, which discretion must be exercised judiciously having regard to the peculiar circumstances of each case, the applicable laws and the interest of justice.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Notice of Appeal — Late Endorsement
Late endorsement of a notice of appeal by the registrar cannot be attributed to the applicant where the applicant filed and served the notice of appeal on time, thereby expressing her intention to appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Burden of Proof
The onus of proving substantial loss and that the respondent cannot repay the decretal sum if the appeal is successful lies with the applicant. Real and cogent evidence must be placed before the court to show that the respondent is not able to refund the decretal sum should the appeal succeed. Bare statements of a generalized and vague nature will not suffice.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Execution by Imprisonment
Execution by imprisonment is a consequence of a lawful process and therefore the fact that there is imminent threat of execution by that lawful process is not itself substantial loss for purposes of granting a stay of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Performance of Decree
An applicant seeking stay of execution must provide security for the due performance of the decree before the stay is granted. The aim of that security is to prevent the matter on appeal being rendered nugatory.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (14)

  • Theodore Sekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Attorney General v Eddie Kwizera (Supreme Court Constitutional Application No. 7 of 2020)
  • Pool Vs Williams [1996] SLR 192
  • Francis Nansio Micar Vs Nuwa Walakara [1992] IV KALR 62
  • Ejulu Martin v Itobu Margret (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 160 of 2022)
  • Mayanja Norah & Ors Vs Habre International Trading Co. [1990-91] KALR 147
  • 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 Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Attorney General of Uganda v The East African Law Society and Another (East African Court of Appeal Application No. 1 of 2013)
  • Nalwoga v EDCO Ltd and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2013)
  • Tropical Commodities and 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 379 of 2003)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Uganda Bottlers (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 25 of 1995)
  • UCB Ltd V. Sanyu & Ors (1999) KALR
  • International Credit Bank v Tropical Commodities Suppliers and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rutenta Joselyne v Muhereza Yason (Miscellaneous Application No. 1195 of 2024) [2026] UGHCCD 103 (31 March 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.