Wakilii

Ssebuufu Acram v Kaizire Mary (Miscellaneous Application 2073 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 441 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of a decree pending determination of a review application
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 dismissed the application for stay of execution. The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for a stay, including failure to prove substantial loss, unreasonable delay in filing, lack of serious threat of execution at the time of filing, and absence of compelling arguments showing the respondent would not be prejudiced. The court found the application was brought in bad faith to delay the respondent's enjoyment of the fruits of litigation.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The respondent purchased a motor vehicle (reg. no. UBJ 772K) from the applicant for UGX 52,000,000 but the applicant failed to hand over the logbook. The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 0083/2024 seeking specific performance. A default judgment was entered against the applicant on 12 November 2024. The applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 808/2025 to set aside the default judgment, which was dismissed on 23 July 2025. The applicant then filed an application for review (Miscellaneous Application No. 2005/2025) and this application for stay of execution pending determination of the review. The respondent filed an execution application on 21 May 2025. The applicant obtained a logbook in the respondent's name on 9 September 2025 but never presented it to her.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant raises sufficient grounds to warrant an order of stay of execution of the decree arising out of Civil Suit No. 0083/2024 pending the disposal of Miscellaneous Application No. 2005/2025.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Requirements under Order 22 Rule 26
Under Order 22 Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where a suit is pending against the holder of a decree, the court has discretion to stay execution of the decree on such terms as it thinks fit, and the rule imposes no specific conditions regarding the nature of the pending suit beyond that there must be a pending suit.
Stay of Execution — Exercise of Discretion
In exercising discretion whether to grant a stay of execution, the court must consider various aspects including the nature of the claim in the pending suit, the relationship between the claims, the strength of the claim, the likely delay, the prejudice to the judgment creditor if a stay is granted, and the risk of prejudice to the party making the cross-claim if a stay is refused. The discretion must be exercised judiciously and in the interests of justice, not mechanically.
Stay of Execution — Burden on Applicant
It is incumbent upon an applicant for stay of execution to demonstrate and satisfy the court that grounds exist for grant of a stay, including demonstrating the possibility of success of the pending suit and that the respondent would not be prejudiced.
Advocate's Instructions — Notice of Instructions Required
An advocate has no authority to act for any person unless he or she has received instructions from that person or his or her duly authorised agent, and a notice of instructions or change of advocates must be filed on court record. However, where the failure to file such notice is counsel's mistake and not the litigant's fault, the court will not visit the consequences on the litigant.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (14)

  • Formula Feeds Ltd and 3 Others v KCB Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Attorney General v James Mark Kamoga & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Lakhman Bhimji v Manor Developments Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 105 of 2010)
  • Kabale Housing Estates Tenants Association v Kabale Municipal Local Council (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2013)
  • Danish Mercantile Co. Limited vs Beamont & Anor (1951) Ch.CA 680
  • Okodoi George & Anor v Okello Opaire Sam (Miscellaneous Application No. 143 of 2016)
  • Capt. Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owota (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)
  • M/s Tad Beer Trading Center (U) Ltd v Caroline Blackburrn Amero (Miscellaneous Application No. 571 of 2024)
  • Iddi Halfani vs Hamisa Binti Athuman [1962] EA 761
  • Burnett vs Francis Industries plc [1987] 2 All ER 323
  • Kabarema Adonia v Natukunda Marion (Miscellaneous Application No. 264 of 2021)
  • Attorney General v Walugembe Daniel (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 390 of 2018)
  • Omar Awadh Omar and 10 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Court Civil Application No. 2 of 2015)
  • Butt vs Rent Restriction Tribunal (1982) KLR 417

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssebuufu Acram v Kaizire Mary (Miscellaneous Application 2073 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 441 (2 December 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.