Wakilii

Uwizera v Dr. Pito Jjemba (Miscellaneous Application No. 1751 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 98 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal from judgment in Civil Suit No. 887 of 2018
Decision
Stay of execution granted on condition of security deposit

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 High Court granted a stay of execution pending appeal from a judgment ordering cancellation of title and re-survey of land. The court held that where a judgment is self-executing and threatens cancellation of title and possible destruction of property beyond ordinary loss, substantial loss may result unless execution is stayed. The applicant satisfied the requirements for stay: notice of appeal filed, appeal not frivolous, application made without undue delay, and imminent threat of execution that would render the appeal nugatory. Stay granted on condition that applicant deposit UGX 20,000,000 as security for due performance of the decree within thirty days.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted on condition of security deposit

Facts

The Applicant owned land comprised in Block 268 Plot 226. The Respondent filed Civil Suit No. 887 of 2018 claiming trespass. On 15 May 2024, the High Court delivered judgment in the Respondent's favour, ordering cancellation of certificates of title created from the original Plot 226 and re-survey of the entire area. The Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal on 23 May 2024 and this application for stay of execution on 1 July 2024. The Respondent claimed the Applicant had encroached onto his Plot 428 by one decimal and had blocked an access road. The Applicant averred that correction of the alleged encroachment would necessitate breaking his perimeter wall and a substantial part of his residential house. On 16 January 2025, surveyors from Buganda Land Board attended the suit land with the Respondent to conduct a re-survey pursuant to the court order.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to an order of stay of execution pending the hearing of the appeal?

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Applicant to deposit UGX 20,000,000 to court as security for due performance of the decree within thirty days of this ruling.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements for Grant
For a stay of execution to issue pending appeal, the applicant must prove: (i) a notice of appeal has been lodged; (ii) the appeal is not frivolous and has a likelihood of success; (iii) the application has been made without unreasonable delay; (iv) substantial loss may result unless stay is granted; (v) there is serious or imminent threat of execution and the appeal would be rendered nugatory if execution proceeds; (vi) refusal to grant stay would inflict more hardship than it would avoid; and (vii) the applicant has given security for due performance of the decree.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Notice of Appeal as Sufficient Basis
A notice of appeal is a sufficient expression of an intention to file an appeal and such action is sufficient to found the basis for grant of orders of stay in appropriate cases.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Self-Executing Judgments
Where a judgment orders cancellation of titles and re-survey of land, the judgment is self-executing and constitutes an imminent threat of execution even in the absence of a formal application for execution or notice to show cause why execution should not issue.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
Substantial loss refers to loss of real worth or value, whether great or small, that is irreparable, cannot be undone once inflicted, cannot be adequately atoned for in damages, and is not merely nominal. It must be loss beyond the ordinary loss to which every judgment debtor is necessarily subjected when losing a case and being deprived of property in consequence.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance
Security for due performance of a decree is required to protect the respondent from the risk that the applicant may not be able to satisfy the decree. However, security for costs is not a condition precedent to the grant of stay of execution, though courts may order it to ensure a losing party does not intentionally delay execution by bringing unnecessary applications and to assure respondents that their costs are catered for.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.44 r.1(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.44 r.1(3)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.44 r.1(4)

Cases cited (18)

  • Singh v Runda Coffee Estates Ltd [1966] EA 263
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Ssekibubo and 4 Others v Attorney General and 3 Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014) [2014] UGSC 11
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Ndiege (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Eluju Martin v Itobu Margret (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 160 of 2022)
  • Shah v Attorney General (1971) EA 50
  • Attorney General of Uganda v East African Law Society and Another (East African Court of Appeal Application No. 1 of 2013)
  • Formular Feeds Ltd and 3 Others v KCB Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Commissioner Customs Uganda Revenue Authority v Kayimba (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 62 of 2014)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (Miscellaneous Application No. 379 of 2003)
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Cogecot Cotton Co. SA [1995-1999] EA 312
  • Hoima Municipal Council v Karamagi (Miscellaneous Application No. 0032 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 138
  • Pan African Insurance Co. (U) Ltd v International Air Transport Association (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2006)
  • National Enterprise Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 1998)
  • P. K Sengendo v Busulwa Lawrence and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 207 of 2014)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Dr. Ann Persis Nakate Lussejere (Court of Appeal No. 29 of 2003)
  • Imperial Royale Hotel Ltd and 2 Others v Ochan Daniel (Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uwizera_v_Dr._Pito_Jjemba_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._1751_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_98_(23_June_2025)
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.