Sunday Edward Mukhooli v Administrator General (Miscellaneous Application No. 1708 of 2025)

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

Held that the application for stay of execution pending appeal was dismissed. The applicant failed to establish that an appeal had been filed in the Court of Appeal, as only a notice of appeal and grounds were filed in the High Court, confirming only an intent to appeal. The applicant also failed to demonstrate that substantial loss would result, as no execution proceedings had been initiated by the respondent. Additionally, the applicant's previous failure to pay costs awarded in earlier proceedings cast doubt on his willingness to provide security for costs.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The applicant brought an application seeking stay of execution of a judgment and decree in HCCS No. 856 of 2019 pending appeal. The underlying judgment had ordered the applicant to vacate suit property within six months, remove his developments, and restrained him from trespassing on the suit land. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 29 July 2025 and requested the record of proceedings. He claimed he had operated a hardware shop on the land for over 20 years and would suffer substantial loss if forced to vacate. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the applicant's appeal had no chance of success and pointing out that the applicant had failed to pay costs of UGX 2,285,000 awarded in Civil Application No. 99 of 2009, leaving only UGX 1,000,000 paid of the total UGX 3,285,000 taxed.

Issues

1. Whether stay of execution should be granted pending appeal.
2. Whether the applicant established that his appeal has a likelihood of success or a prima facie case of his right to appeal.
3. Whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss if the application is not granted.
4. Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay.
5. Whether security has been given by the applicant for due performance of the decree.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 22 rule 26
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 22 rule 27
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 4(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 4(3)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 4(4)

Cases cited (5)

• Laurence Musiitwa Kyozze v Eunice Businque (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
• Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v The Attorney General & Others (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
• Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd & 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (HCMA No. 379 of 2003)
• Formular Feeds Limited and 3 Others v KCB Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2023)
• Kawanga v Namyalo & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2017)

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.

• Sunday Edward Mukhooli v Administrator General (Suing through Grace Matovu) (Civil Application No. 559 of 2026; HCCS No. 856 of 2019)

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