Sunday Edward Mukhooli v Administrator General [2026] UGHCLD 8

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.

Holding

The High Court dismissed an application to stay execution of a decree requiring the applicant to vacate suit land within six months. Applying Kyazze v Businge and Ssekikubo, the court held that a notice of appeal and a letter requesting the record, unaccompanied by any memorandum of appeal, established only an intention to appeal and not an appeal with a likelihood of success. Although the application was filed promptly after judgment, the applicant proved no substantial loss because there was no evidence that execution had been applied for or was being pursued, and his unpaid taxed costs from an earlier application cast doubt on his willingness to provide security for due performance. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed; decree in HCCS No. 856 of 2019 remains executable

Facts

Judgment in High Court Civil Suit No. 856 of 2019 was delivered on 24 July 2025. The decree gave the applicant six months to vacate the suit property and remove his developments, and issued a permanent injunction restraining him from trespassing on the suit land. On 25/29 July 2025 the applicant's advocates filed a notice of appeal and a letter requesting the record of proceedings; no memorandum of appeal had been filed in the Court of Appeal. On 4 August 2025 the applicant applied to the High Court for a stay of execution pending appeal, asserting eight grounds of appeal, that the vacation order was self-executing, and that he had operated a hardware shop on the land for over twenty years from which he and his family derived subsistence, with no easy alternative business premises in Kampala. He stated he was willing to deposit security for costs. The respondent, the Administrator General, opposed the application, contending the appeal lacked prospects because the Local Council court decision relied upon was made without jurisdiction over registered land, and that the applicant had failed to pay UGX 2,285,000 of taxed costs awarded in Civil Application No. 99 of 2009.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant established a likelihood of success or a prima facie right of appeal so as to justify a stay of execution.
2. Whether the applicant would suffer substantial loss if execution of the decree were not stayed.
3. Whether the application was brought without unreasonable delay.
4. Whether the applicant had shown willingness and ability to give security for due performance of the decree.

Orders

• This Application is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Civil Procedure Act cap 282 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.26
• Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.27
• Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3
• Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.4(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.4(3)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.4(4)

Cases cited (5)

• Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businge (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
• Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
• Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (in liquidation) (Miscellaneous Application No. 379 of 2003)
• Formular Feeds Ltd and 3 Others v KCB Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2023)
• Kawanga v Namyalo and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2017)

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