Simon Peter Ongodia v Apuda Ignatius Loyola (Civil Application No. 490 of 2024)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

A single Justice of the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for a stay of execution pending appeal. The applicant failed all governing conditions. A notice of appeal that is not served on the opposite party is not validly lodged, rendering any appeal incompetent and meaning no appeal is pending; the applicant therefore showed no prima facie case or right of appeal. The asserted harms (arrest, age and ill health, destruction of published works) were unsubstantiated and amounted only to the ordinary inconvenience of an unsuccessful litigant, not irreparable damage. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent, who had not enjoyed the fruits of his judgment, and the application, brought over two years after judgment, was tainted by inordinate delay.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs; execution of the High Court decree may proceed

Facts

The applicant was the first defendant in a High Court (Commercial Division) suit in which judgment was entered against him for copyright infringement in 2021, with a decretal sum, interest and taxed costs totalling UGX 37,800,000. He filed a notice of appeal shortly after judgment and paid the requisite fees, but his then advocates never served the notice on the respondent. The certified record of proceedings was supplied to him in 2023. Through successive sets of lawyers he sought, in Civil Application No. 721 of 2023, leave to extend time to serve the notice of appeal and to validate the appeal, which remained pending. The respondent obtained an execution order and attachment of property and applied for a warrant of arrest. The applicant deposited UGX 200,000 as security for due performance and applied for a stay of execution pending the intended appeal, contending he would suffer irreparable harm from arrest given his age and health and from destruction of his published dictionaries.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant established a prima facie case or an appeal with a likelihood of success.
2. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable damage or the appeal would be rendered nugatory if a stay of execution were not granted.
3. Where the balance of convenience lies.
4. Whether the application for a stay of execution was instituted without inordinate delay.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.12
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) SI 13-10 r.6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) SI 13-10 r.42(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) SI 13-10 r.43(1) and (2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) SI 13-10 r.44
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.22 r.26
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.52 r.1 and r.3

Cases cited (13)

• Theodore Ssekikubo & 3 Others v Attorney General & 4 Others (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
• URA v Imaniraguha (Civil Application No. 1747 of 2023)
• Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
• MP Electronics Limited & Anor v Kamani & 2 Ors (Civil Application No. 614 of 2024)
• Edirisa Muyingo v Ismael Ssempija & Anor (Civil Application No. 291 of 2023)
• American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
• National Housing & Construction Co. Ltd v Salome T.B Kyomukama (Civil Application No. 133 of 2009)
• Ekuket v Okunya & Anor (Civil Application No. 170 of 2009)
• Nyirabarore Vinnis & Anor v Nyirakubanza Sarafina & Ors (Civil Application No. 37 of 2018)
• Tekereza Hellen Baryayanga & Ors v Kyaligonza Sylvia & Ors (Civil Application No. 1114 of 2023)
• Teddy Sseezi Cheeye v Enos Tumusiime (Civil Application No. 21 of 1995)
• Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Atabya Agencies Ltd (Civil Application No. 31 of 2004)
• Wilson Mukiibi v James Semusambwa (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.

• Nile Breweries Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 2780 of 2025)

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