Wakilii

Semwanga v Kwizera (Misc. Application No. 412 of 2013)

High Court · [2014] UGHCLD 94 · 2014 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal from High Court judgment in Civil Suit No. 61 of 2005
Decision
Stay of execution refused; decree in Civil Suit No. 61 of 2005 remains enforceable

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

Application for stay of execution pending appeal dismissed. The court held that the applicant failed to satisfy the requisite conditions: substantial loss would not result from execution as rent collected could be quantified and refunded if the appeal succeeds; the application was filed with inordinate delay; and the applicant's conduct during execution proceedings demonstrated unwillingness or inability to furnish security for due performance of the decree.

Outcome

Stay of execution refused; decree in Civil Suit No. 61 of 2005 remains enforceable

Facts

The applicant was the unsuccessful party in Civil Suit No. 61 of 2005, in which the respondent was confirmed as the registered proprietor of land. Judgment was delivered on 18 September 2012. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 24 September 2012 and a memorandum of appeal on 17 January 2013. Execution proceedings commenced: the applicant was arrested and committed to civil prison on 11 April 2013 for failing to pay taxed costs of UGX 34,862,274. He served the full term until 10 October 2013. On 22 April 2013, the respondent procured a notice to create vacant possession of the suit property. The applicant then filed this application on 9 May 2013 seeking stay of execution pending determination of the appeal, Civil Appeal No. 06 of 2012. The applicant remained in possession of the suit property and continued to collect rent from tenants on the property throughout this period.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for a stay of execution of a decree pending appeal.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
All three conditions for stay of execution must be proved before the court can grant the order: that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made; that the application was made without unreasonable delay; and that the applicant is willing and able to furnish security for due performance of the decree.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
Substantial loss does not represent any particular amount or size; it refers to any loss, great or small, that is of real worth or value, as distinguished from a loss without value or merely nominal loss. Where rent collected from property can be quantified by mathematical formula and refunded, an appeal will not be rendered nugatory and the applicant has not demonstrated substantial loss.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Delay
An applicant seeking stay of execution must file the application diligently. A period of seven months between the date of the decree and filing of the application, coupled with dismissal of previous applications for want of prosecution and an application filed only after serious execution steps including arrest and notice to vacate, amounts to inordinate delay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Costs
A party's willingness and ability to furnish security for due performance of a decree must be borne out by conduct during execution proceedings. Where an applicant was unable to pay taxed costs resulting in incarceration and served the full term, the court may conclude the applicant is unwilling or unable to comply with any conditions to furnish security.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (7)

  • Mulira v Mitchell Cotts (HCMA No. 715 of 2009)
  • [1962] EA 761
  • Kyazze v Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kisuule v Greenland Bank (SCC Application No. 17 of 2010)
  • (1879) 12 Ch D 454
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Lussejere (CACA No. 29 of 2003)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd & Ors Vs. International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Semwanga v Kwizera (Misc. Application No. 412 of 2013) [2014] UGHCLD 94 (26 March 2014)
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.