Wakilii

Tayebwa and Another v Mbasege and 8 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2359 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 230 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution arising from Civil Suit No. 122 of 2017 pending intended appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed as premature and speculative

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 an application for stay of execution arising from a land dispute. The applicants failed to prove substantial loss they would suffer, as no execution application had been filed by the respondents. The court found the application speculative and premature, citing Gashumba v Nkudiye for the principle that stay applications require demonstration of actual risk of substantial loss.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed as premature and speculative

Facts

The applicants were plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 122 of 2017 in which they claimed ownership of land comprised in Kibuga Block 6 Plot 272 at Katwe measuring 2.62 acres. The court dismissed their suit and entered judgment for the defendants (2nd to 9th respondents) on the counterclaim, declaring the respondents as lawful owners and the applicants as trespassers. The court ordered vacant possession and demolition of structures erected by the applicants. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the applicants filed a notice of appeal and sought stay of execution, claiming the respondents had started delivering building materials to the suit land, creating imminent danger of execution. The 7th respondent opposed the application, stating no decree had been sealed and no execution application filed, making the stay application premature.

Issues

  1. Whether execution of the judgment and decree in Civil Suits 121 and 122 of 2017 should be stayed pending the applicants' intended appeal.
  2. Whether the applicants demonstrated that they would suffer substantial loss if the stay is not granted.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements for Grant — Proof of Substantial Loss
An application for stay of execution pending appeal requires the applicant to prove to the satisfaction of the court what substantial loss they will suffer if the stay is not granted.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Premature Application — No Pending Execution
A stay of execution application is premature and speculative where no application for execution has been filed by the decree holder and there is no evidence of actual imminent execution.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (1)

  • Gashumba v Nkudiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tayebwa_and_Another_v_Mbasege_and_8_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._2359_of_2021)_[2022]_UGHCLD_230_(30_November_2022)
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.