Wakilii

Ssesanga Kalid v Kakembo Sulaiman (Miscellaneous Application No.158 of 2022)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 86 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal to the Court of Appeal from High Court judgment in land appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed; applicant remains at liberty to apply for stay if imminent threat of execution arises

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (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 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. 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

Application for stay of execution dismissed. The court held that while the applicant filed a notice of appeal and did so without unreasonable delay, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal to the Court of Appeal had a likelihood of success, as the grounds of appeal were vague, general, and speculative. Further, no imminent threat of execution was established, as the respondent had taken no concrete steps toward execution and the letter relied upon was merely a notice of intention to sue unrelated to the suit land.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed; applicant remains at liberty to apply for stay if imminent threat of execution arises

Facts

The applicant, fourth appellant in a land appeal, sought stay of execution of a High Court judgment pending appeal to the Court of Appeal. The underlying suit was a trespass action in the Chief Magistrate's Court (Civil Suit No. 81 of 2009) in which judgment was entered for the plaintiff (respondent). The High Court dismissed the appeal on 7 July 2022. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 18 July 2022, endorsed on 26 July 2022. The applicant claimed he and his family resided on the suit land and that a mosque serving the community was located thereon. He alleged an eviction notice had been issued by the respondent's lawyers on 23 September 2022. The respondent denied any threat of execution, stating he had never extracted a decree or filed a bill of costs, and that the letter was a notice of intention to sue concerning different land. The applicant filed the stay application in October 2022.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant filed a notice of appeal.
  2. Whether the application was brought without unreasonable delay.
  3. Whether substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the stay is granted.
  4. Whether there exists an imminent threat of execution.
  5. Whether the intended appeal has a likelihood of success.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.
  • Nothing in this ruling precludes the applicant from applying for a stay of execution should concrete and verifiable steps toward execution arise.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements for Grant
For a grant of stay of execution pending appeal, the applicant must show that a notice of appeal was filed, the application was brought without unreasonable delay, substantial loss may result unless the stay is granted, and there is a serious threat of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Notice of Appeal as Sufficient Expression of Intention
A notice of appeal is a sufficient expression of the intention to appeal and constitutes sufficient action for the court to find a basis for the grant of a stay of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Irreparable Injury
Irreparable injury does not mean that there must not be a physical possibility of repairing the injury, but it means that the injury or damage must be one that cannot be adequately atoned for by damages.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success on Appeal
In determining whether to grant a stay of execution, the court does not decide the appeal but must be satisfied that the appeal raises issues which merit consideration and that the intended appeal raises important questions of law and is therefore not frivolous. Where the intended appeal is a second appeal, a higher threshold applies in proving that the appeal is not frivolous.
Civil Procedure — Grounds of Appeal — Specificity Required
Grounds of appeal framed in vague and general terms, which do not identify the particular evidence or facts complained of and invite speculative inquiry, fail to advance the spirit of an appeal and do not articulate issues with the requisite specificity and certainty. Grounds of appeal should specify the points which are alleged to have been wrongly decided and the nature of the order sought.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Imminent Threat of Execution
There must be evidence of concrete and verifiable steps taken by the respondent to demonstrate the immediacy of execution, such as the extraction of a decree, taxation of a bill of costs, application for a warrant of execution, and the issuance of a notice to show cause why execution should not issue. A mere notice of intention to sue, which makes no reference to a judgment, decree, or the suit land, does not constitute an imminent threat of execution.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (10)

  • Katsinde and another v Rubarekyera and others (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 184 of 2025)
  • Ssekikubo and others v Attorney General and others (Constitutional Application No. 06 of 2013)
  • Mangeni v Magero and others (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 51 of 2025)
  • Nakibus v Akim (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 420 of 2019)
  • Attorney General v Law Society and another (East African Court of Justice Application No. 1 of 2013)
  • Giella v Cassman Brown and Co [1973] EA 358
  • Dr Ahmed Muhamed Kisule v Greenland Bank (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 10 of 2010)
  • Arim Felix Clive v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 101 of 2013)
  • Sukuton v Augustine and others (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 117 of 2012)
  • Kabuga Ranchers v Kamwenge District Local Government (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 103 of 2024)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Ssesanga Kalid v Kakembo Sulaiman (Miscellaneous Application No.158 of 2022) [2026] UGHC 86 (19 January 2026)
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.