Wakilii

Sanyu v Kabyanga and Another (Civil Application 160 of 2024)

Court of Appeal · [2024] UGCA 203 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution and a temporary injunction pending the determination of a civil appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution and temporary injunction dismissed with costs

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 Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's application for a stay of execution and a temporary injunction. On stay, the applicant failed to show he had lodged a notice of (cross-)appeal or any likelihood of success, and the 1st respondent's memorandum of appeal did not concern him; further, the general damages and profits he had been ordered to pay were ascertainable and therefore not irreparable injury. On the temporary injunction, the court held it is difficult to establish a prima facie case with a chance of success on appeal where there is a High Court decision against the applicant. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution and temporary injunction dismissed with costs

Facts

The 1st respondent filed HCCS 304 of 2002 against the applicant and four others for recovery of land at Gomba Block 28, Nabuguyo. The High Court found for the 1st respondent, declaring him the equitable owner, ordering the applicant evicted from Plot 3, directing cancellation of the applicant's title, and awarding the 1st respondent general damages of UGX 30,000,000 and profits of UGX 20,000,000. The 1st respondent nonetheless appealed (Civil Appeal 144 of 2022), and the applicant claimed to have filed a cross-appeal. The applicant brought this application to stay execution and restrain the respondents from dealing with, alienating or evicting him from the suit land, asserting fraudulent and illegal execution on Plot 5 (which he said he had subdivided from Plot 1) rather than Plot 3, and that eviction would cause irreparable harm to him and his family.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for a stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success warranting a temporary injunction restraining dealings in the suit land.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Notice of Appeal as a Precondition
An applicant for a stay of execution must first show that he has lodged a notice of appeal (or cross-appeal); absent a notice of appeal and where the respondent's memorandum of appeal does not concern the applicant, the applicant fails to demonstrate any interest in or likelihood of success on the appeal and the application must fail.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Irreparable Loss — Ascertainable Damages
Where the loss alleged consists of monetary awards that can be ascertained, such as general damages and profits already quantified by the court, the injury is not irreparable, since irreparable injury is damage that cannot be adequately compensated for in damages or readily ascertained against a fixed pecuniary standard.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Prima Facie Case Pending Appeal
It is difficult for an applicant to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success for the grant of a temporary injunction pending appeal where there is a subsisting decision of the lower or High Court against him.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (8)

  • Francis Kanyanga u Diamond Trust Bank
  • Godfreg sekitoleko and others u seezi Mutabazi [2001-2005] HCB Vol. 1. p. 30
  • Amrit Goyal v Marichand Goyal and 3 Others (Civil Application No. 109 of 2004)
  • Buganda Medical Centre v Ngamutero and Others (Application No. 7 of 2020)
  • Bio ToslLa Distibutors Ltd u Kenga Breueries Ltd and others Petition 15 of 2O2O
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omodo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 371 of 2013)
  • Ahmed Muhammed Kisuule v Greenland Bank (in liquidation) (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sanyu v Kabyanga and Another (Civil Application 160 of 2024) [2024] UGCA 203 (29 July 2024)
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.