The Registered trustees of Soroti Catholic Diocese v Echodu and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 32 of 2022)

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 the application for stay of execution. The court held that the applicant failed to prove a threat of execution or substantial loss, as the notice to show cause related only to recovery of taxed costs, not demolition of the church. No warrant of execution had been issued. The proper procedure was for the applicant to appear and show cause why execution should not issue, rather than filing this application. The appeal would not be rendered nugatory by execution of costs.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed; applicant to follow proper procedure by showing cause why execution should not issue

Facts

The applicant, Soroti Catholic Diocese, sought to stay execution of a decree in Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2015 pending determination of their appeal to the Court of Appeal. The applicant had previously filed Miscellaneous Application No. 57 of 2021 for stay of execution, which was dismissed on 3 November 2021 for want of prosecution. The respondents issued a notice to show cause why execution should not issue, served on 21 February 2022, seeking to recover taxed costs from the appeal. The applicant filed the present application on 28 March 2022, claiming they would suffer substantial loss through demolition of a church building on the suit land. The respondents contended that the notice to show cause related only to recovery of costs, not demolition, and that the High Court judgment had allocated 20x20 meters to the church.

Issues

1. Whether the execution of the decree in High Court Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2015 should be stayed pending the hearing and determination of the applicant's appeal in the Court of Appeal.
2. Whether the applicant demonstrated substantial loss or injury that would result if execution is not stayed.
3. Whether the application was filed without unreasonable delay.
4. Whether there is a serious or imminent threat of execution that would render the appeal nugatory.
5. Whether the application is properly before the court given the prior dismissal of Miscellaneous Application No. 57 of 2021.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Judicature Act s.33
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 4(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 4(3)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 22 rule 19
• Registration of Titles Act

Cases cited (10)

• Dr. Ahmed Muhammed Kisuule v Greenland Bank (In Liquidation) [2011] UGSC 5
• Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v The Attorney General & Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
• Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
• Kyambogo University v Prof Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
• Elite International Tobacco (U) Ltd v Marchfair Stationery (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 323 of 2001)
• Imperial Royale Hotel Ltd & 2 Ors v Ochan Daniel (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 111 of 2012)
• John Baptist Kawanga v Namyalo (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2017)
• Margaret Kato v Nalwoga (Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2011)
• National Enterprise Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 7 of 1998)
• Francis Nansio Micar v Nuwa Walakira (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9 of 1990)

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