Wakilii

The Registered Trustees of Church of Uganda,Kumi District v Apio (Miscellaneous Application 72 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 259 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution arising from dismissed civil appeal
Decision
Application dismissed as misconceived and lacking merit; respondent remains in possession of the suit land

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

An application for stay of execution was dismissed where execution had already been completed. The court found that the applicant had unreasonably delayed filing the application (one year, eight months, and 26 days after judgment) and that there was no existing court order left to stay, as the execution report had been filed and the respondent was already in possession of the land. The application was dismissed as misconceived and an abuse of court process.

Outcome

Application dismissed as misconceived and lacking merit; respondent remains in possession of the suit land

Facts

The respondent had obtained judgment declaring her the lawful owner of approximately 33 gardens of land at Oleicho village, Mukongoro sub-county in Kumi district in Civil Suit No. 11 of 2016. The applicant appealed to the High Court (Civil Appeal No. 71 of 2017), which dismissed the appeal on 31 August 2020. The applicant filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal on 7 September 2020. Execution of the judgment was carried out and an execution report was filed on 21 December 2021, with the respondent taking possession of the land. The applicant filed this application for stay of execution on 26 May 2022, claiming the respondent had erected structures on the land and was destroying crops.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a proper case for grant of an order for a stay of execution?
  2. What remedies are available to the applicant in the circumstances?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Application After Execution Completed — No Order Remaining to Stay
Where execution has been completed and an execution report filed showing that the judgment creditor is in possession, there is no order remaining to be stayed and an application for stay of execution must fail as there is nothing left to stay.
Stay of Execution — Unreasonable Delay — One Year Eight Months After Judgment
A delay of one year, eight months, and 26 days between the entry of judgment and the filing of an application for stay of execution, without any explanation for the delay, constitutes unreasonable delay and is a ground for refusing the application.
Stay of Execution — Grounds to be Established — Test in Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze
An applicant seeking a stay of execution must fulfill four grounds: (a) that a notice of appeal has been lodged; (b) that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the stay is granted; (c) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (d) that the applicant has given security for the due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding.
Stay of Execution — Intention to Appeal Not Sufficient Ground
An intention to appeal per se is not a ground for a stay of execution. A party seeking a stay must satisfy the court that there is sufficient cause why the party with judgment should postpone enjoyment of its benefits. It is not sufficient for the judgment debtor to say that he is vulnerable because the successful party may take out execution proceedings.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (11)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Hon Theodore Ssekikubo and ors v The Attorney General and ors (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda v East African Law Society and Anor (EAC Application No. 1 of 2013)
  • Equity Bank (U) Ltd v Nicholas Were (Miscellaneous Application No. 604 of 2013)
  • Eriab Kabigiza v Lawrence Sserwanja [1975] HCB 199
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and others v International Credit Bank Ltd (in liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Membe v Mayoga [2009] 1 HCB 82
  • Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tadjin Hussein [2008] ULR 310
  • Ujagar Singh v Runda Coffee Estates Ltd [1966] EA 263
  • Wilson Mukiibi v James Semusambwa (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The Registered Trustees of Church of Uganda,Kumi District v Apio (Miscellaneous Application 72 of 2023) [2023] UGHCCD 259 (19 July 2023)
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.