Wakilii

Sebbi Nasur v Nasur Yusuf Olima (Miscellaneous Application No. 35 of 2020)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 883 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court judgment
Decision
Execution of the decree from Civil Suit No. 0007 of 2016 stayed pending resolution of Civil Appeal No. 0035 of 2019

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 the application for stay of execution pending appeal. The applicant satisfied most conditions under Order 43 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules: he lodged a notice of appeal, demonstrated imminent threat of execution, showed the appeal had a likelihood of success, and proved substantial loss would result if the stay were not granted. Although the applicant failed to provide adequate security for the decree (paying only UGX 200,000 against a decretal sum of UGX 20,000,000) and filed the application with inordinate delay, the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay to prevent rendering the appeal nugatory.

Outcome

Execution of the decree from Civil Suit No. 0007 of 2016 stayed pending resolution of Civil Appeal No. 0035 of 2019

Facts

The applicant filed a suit against the respondent in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Yumbe. Judgment was delivered on 19 November 2019 against the applicant with orders for payment of UGX 20,000,000, general damages, mesne profits, permanent injunction, eviction order, and costs. The applicant filed an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 0035 of 2019) on 29 November 2019. On 9 December 2019, the respondent served the applicant with a notice to show cause why a warrant of arrest should not be issued. The applicant filed this application on 11 December 2020 seeking stay of execution pending appeal. The applicant deposited UGX 200,000 as security. The respondent opposed the application, arguing the trial magistrate properly evaluated evidence and the appeal had no merit.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to grant the application for stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. What remedies are available for the parties.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution granted.
  • Costs to follow the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Order 43 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Rules
An application for stay of execution pending appeal must satisfy the mandatory conditions under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules: that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the stay is granted; that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and that security has been given by the applicant for due performance of the decree as may ultimately be binding upon him or her.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Additional Principles — Imminent Threat and Likelihood of Success
In addition to the statutory conditions, the court must be satisfied that there is a serious or imminent threat of execution and if the application is not granted the appeal would be rendered nugatory; that the application is not frivolous and has a likelihood of success; and that the refusal to grant the stay would inflict more hardship than it would avoid.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Decree — Adequacy and Form
The requirement to furnish security for due performance of the decree is mandatory under Order 43 Rule 4(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The security must be adequate to fulfill the decretal sum. So long as the opposite party can be adequately protected, the security may take many forms including bank guarantee and payment into court, and the form is immaterial provided the security is adequate.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Burden of Proof and Specificity Required
The applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that substantial loss or irreparable damage will be suffered if the stay is not granted. It is not enough to merely repeat the words of the code and state that substantial loss will result; the kind of loss must be specified, details must be given, and the court's conscience must be satisfied that such loss will really ensue. Substantial loss must mean something in addition to and different from the ordinary loss which every judgment debtor necessarily suffers when he loses his case.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Balance of Convenience — Discretionary Exercise
Where an applicant has largely satisfied the conditions for stay of execution but has failed on some points such as paying adequate security and filing without unreasonable delay, the court may still grant the stay if the balance of convenience favours the applicant and the refusal would render the appeal nugatory.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (10)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • John Baptist Kawanga v Namyalo Kevina & Semakula Lawrence (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2017)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • E.L.T Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Katende Abdu Nasser (1985) HCB 43
  • New Vision Newspaper v J.H Ntabgoba (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 243 of 2004)
  • Pan African Insurance Company (U) Ltd v International Air Transport Association (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 086 of 2006)
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Cogecot Cotton Co. SA (1995-1998) 1 EA 312
  • Bansidhav vs Pribku Dayal AIR 41 1954
  • American Cyanamid Company Limited v Ethicon [1975] AC 396

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sebbi Nasur v Nasur Yusuf Olima (Miscellaneous Application No. 35 of 2020) [2025] UGHC 883 (25 July 2025)
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.