Wakilii

Ruyombana v Mwesige Kyamuresire and Another (HCT-01-LD-MA-0012-2026)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 503 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of High Court judgment pending appeal to Court of Appeal
Decision
Stay of execution granted conditionally upon deposit of security; if security not deposited within 30 days, stay automatically vacated

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 of its earlier judgment pending determination of the applicant's appeal to the Court of Appeal. The court held that the applicant satisfied all three conditions under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules: substantial loss would result from eviction from land occupied since 2007, the application was filed promptly without unreasonable delay, and the applicant expressed willingness to provide security. The court ordered the applicant to deposit 30% of taxed costs as security within 30 days, failing which the stay would automatically be vacated.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted conditionally upon deposit of security; if security not deposited within 30 days, stay automatically vacated

Facts

The applicant Ruyombana James was the successful plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 019 of 2017 at the Chief Magistrate's Court of Bundibugyo. The respondents appealed to the High Court in Civil Appeal No. 026 of 2021. On 25 August 2025, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court's decision, and dismissed the applicant's suit with costs. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 4 September 2025 and lodged Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 831 of 2025. The applicant then sought a stay of execution, alleging that respondents had repeatedly visited the suit land with surveyors and unidentified individuals attempting forceful re-entry, stopped only by police intervention. The respondents had initiated taxation proceedings for costs of UGX 8,068,500. The applicant claimed he had occupied and developed the land since August 2007 and would suffer irreparable loss if evicted pending appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the three-pronged test for stay of execution under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the applicant would suffer substantial loss if execution proceeded pending appeal.
  3. Whether the application was brought without unreasonable delay.
  4. Whether the applicant provided or offered adequate security for the due performance of the decree.

Orders

  • Stay of execution of the judgment and orders in High Court Civil Appeal No. 0026 of 2021 granted pending determination of Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 831 of 2025.
  • Applicant directed to deposit 30% of total taxed costs (UGX 8,068,500) as security within 30 days from the date of the ruling.
  • Should the applicant fail to deposit the security sum of UGX 2,420,550 within 30 days, the stay shall automatically stand vacated and respondents shall be at liberty to proceed with execution.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Three-Pronged Test under Order 43 Rule 4(3)
An applicant seeking stay of execution pending appeal must satisfy three essential conditions: that substantial loss may result unless the order is made, that the application has been brought without unreasonable delay, and that security for the due performance of the decree has been given.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Qualitative Standard
Substantial loss is a qualitative concept referring to loss of real worth rather than a mathematical formula. Eviction from land occupied and developed over many years constitutes substantial loss that cannot be adequately compensated by damages alone, as displacement and disruption of long-term development are inherently irreversible.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Threat of Execution — Burden of Proof
Facts deponed to in an affidavit that are not specifically denied or controverted in a reply must be taken as admitted by the opposing party. Where an applicant alleges repeated attempts at forceful re-entry by respondents and these allegations are not rebutted, the court must accept that a genuine and imminent risk exists.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance
A stay of execution may be granted on condition that security is provided. An applicant's expressed readiness to pay security, coupled with a court order requiring deposit of a specified sum within a defined period, satisfies the security requirement under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Balancing Rights — Fruits of Judgment versus Right of Appeal
In determining whether to grant a stay of execution, the court must balance the successful party's right to enjoy the fruits of their judgment against the need to preserve the appellate process and ensure that an appeal is not rendered nugatory. Where execution would defeat the very purpose of a pending appeal, a stay should be granted.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (8)

  • Lawrence Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Hwan Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein and Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd and Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkundiye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
  • Joseph Ouma and Another v Martin Muranga (Miscellaneous Application No. 1007 of 2022)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubbo and 3 Others v Attorney General and 4 Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 06 of 2013)
  • Kithende Appollinaris Kalyeboga v Mrs. Eleonora Wismer and Others (HCMA 047 of 2024)
  • Kwikiriza Harriet v Kabatengesa Enid Byanjeru (HCCMA 110 of 2025)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ruyombana v Mwesige Kyamuresire and Another (HCT-01-LD-MA-0012-2026) [2026] UGHC 503 (20 May 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.