Wakilii

Rwashande Yosam and Others v Kayiwa Vincent (Civil Application No 330 of 2025)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 109 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending an intended appeal to the Supreme Court
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

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

On an application to stay execution of a Court of Appeal judgment pending an intended appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court held that the applicants failed to establish that the intended appeal had a likelihood of success, the certificate of title evidence favouring the respondent, who held absolute ownership under section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act. The applicants also failed to show they would suffer irreparable loss, irreparable loss meaning loss that cannot be compensated by money. Their failure to apply for a certificate of importance or take steps to file the intended appeal showed a lack of seriousness. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicants claimed to be the rightful owners of 380 acres at Lwaweba Nkondo, Maddu sub county, Gomba District by virtue of lease offers granted in 2009 by Mpigi District Land Board. When they began surveying the land for certificates of title, the respondent halted the process, asserting that he had been granted a full-term lease over the same land by the Uganda Land Commission and issued a certificate of title in 1981 (Gomba Block 74 Plot 6). The applicants sued (Civil Suit No. 58 of 2016) to cancel the respondent's title for fraud; the suit was dismissed and the respondent's counterclaim allowed, with general damages of UGX 30,000,000 and costs. Their appeal (Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2021) was dismissed, the Court of Appeal finding no fraud and declaring the applicants trespassers. They lodged a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court and applied for the record of proceedings, then sought a stay of execution pending that intended appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants fulfilled the legal requirements for a stay of execution.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application shall be paid to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for grant pending appeal
An applicant for a stay of execution must demonstrate that a notice of appeal was lodged, that the appeal has a high likelihood of success in that a prima facie case has been made, and that the applicant will suffer irreparable loss if the stay is not granted; where likelihood of success and irreparable loss are not established the court considers the balance of convenience, and the application must have been lodged without undue delay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Meaning of irreparable loss
Irreparable injury does not mean that the injury cannot physically be repaired, but that the injury or damage must be substantial or material, namely one that cannot be adequately atoned for in damages or compensated for with money.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Failure to prosecute intended appeal
Where an applicant for a stay of execution has not applied for a certificate of importance and has taken no steps to file the intended appeal, such laxity imputes a lack of seriousness in having the alleged complaints resolved and weighs against granting the stay.
Land & Property — Registration of Titles — Absolute ownership of a registered proprietor
Under section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act a registered proprietor holds absolute ownership of the land subject only to proof of fraud, and where no fraud is attributed to the proprietor that title prevails over mere lease offers, which are issued subject to land being available.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (5)

  • [2024] UGCA 23
  • [2015] UGSC 21
  • [2013] UGSC 21
  • National Housing & Construction Co. Ltd v Kampala District Land Board & Another (Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2005)
  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. [1973] EA 358

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rwashande Yosam and Others v Kayiwa Vincent (Civil Application No 330 of 2025) 2026 UGCA 109 (1 April 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.