Wakilii

Serere District Local Government and 4 Others v Omiat (Miscellaneous Application No. 113 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 66 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal from judgment in Civil Suit No. 010 of 2016
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed; respondent entitled to proceed with execution of decree in Civil Suit No. 010 of 2016

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 dismissed the application for stay of execution pending appeal. The applicants failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules. They did not provide documentary evidence of filing a notice of appeal, failed to prove substantial loss beyond ordinary loss, did not demonstrate a serious threat of execution, and did not give security for due performance of the decree. The court held that a successful party should not be deprived of the fruits of judgment without good and cogent reasons.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed; respondent entitled to proceed with execution of decree in Civil Suit No. 010 of 2016

Facts

The applicants sought to stay execution of a decree in Civil Suit No. 010 of 2016 pending appeal. The decree had declared the applicants trespassers on suit land and issued a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the respondent's ownership and possession. The applicants claimed the suit land comprised a market and their residences, and that two applicants were above seventy years old. They alleged the respondent was threatening to execute the decree. The respondent opposed the application, arguing the applicants were violating the permanent injunction and that the application was incompetent as regards the first applicant, Serere District Local Government, which had separately filed its own stay application through the Attorney General.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a proper case for grant of an order for a stay of execution?
  2. What are the remedies to the parties in the circumstances?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Requirements under Order 43 Rule 4(3)
For a stay of execution to be granted, the applicant must satisfy the court that: (a) substantial loss may result unless the order is made; (b) the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (c) security has been given for due performance of the decree as may ultimately be binding upon the applicant.
Stay of Execution — Notice of Appeal as Prerequisite
A notice of appeal is a sufficient expression of an intention to file an appeal and such action is sufficient to found the basis for grant of orders of stay in appropriate cases. An applicant for stay of execution must provide documentary evidence of having lodged a notice of appeal.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
Substantial loss does not represent any particular size or amount but refers to any loss, great or small, that is of real worth or value as distinguished from a loss that is merely nominal. The substantial loss must be proved with cogent evidence and must not be capable of monetary atonement. Mere statements or vague assertions of substantial loss are insufficient.
Stay of Execution — Serious Threat of Execution
For a stay of execution to be granted, there should be a serious eminent threat of execution before the hearing of the main application. The applicant must provide documentary evidence of such threat; mere allegations without supporting evidence are insufficient.
Stay of Execution — Security for Costs
Security for costs is not a condition precedent to the grant of stay of execution. However, failure to give security or undertake to give security is a factor the court considers in exercising its discretion.
Stay of Execution — Fruits of Judgment
Courts of law should not without good reason delay a successful party from enjoying the fruits of judgment. A party seeking a stay of execution must satisfy the court that there is sufficient cause why the party with judgment should postpone the enjoyment of its benefits. It is not sufficient for the judgment debtor to say that he is vulnerable because the successful party may take out execution proceedings.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (17)

  • Membe v Mayoga [2009] 1 HCB 82
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Hon Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v The Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Baguma Paul T/A Panache Associates v Engineer Karuma Kagyina (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 460 of 2020)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda v East African Law Society and Another (EACJ Application No. 1 of 2013)
  • Equity Bank (U) Ltd v Nicholas Were (Miscellaneous Application No. 604 of 2013)
  • Eriab Kabigiza v Lawrence Sserwanja [1975] HCB 199
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (in liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Walusimbi Mustafa v Musenze Lukia (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 232 of 2018)
  • Andrew Kisawuzi v Dan Oundo Malingu (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 467 of 2013)
  • Nandaula v Uganda Development Bank Limited (High Court Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1992)
  • Mabu Commodities Limited v Sophie Nakitende (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 530 of 2020)
  • Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tadjin Hussein [2008] ULR 310
  • Ujagar Singh v Runda Coffee Estates Ltd [1966] EA 263
  • Imperial Royale Hotel Ltd and 2 Others v Ochan Daniel (Miscellaneous Application No. 111 of 2012)
  • Wilson Mukiibi v James Semusambwa (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9 of 2003)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Serere_District_Local_Government_and_4_Others_v_Omiat_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._113_of_2022)_[2023]_UGHCLD_66_(16_March_2023)
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.