Wakilii

Veronica Athago and Another v Obbo Christopher (Miscellaneous Application No. 387 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1381 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of High Court decree pending determination of application for reinstatement of dismissed appeal before Court of Appeal
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

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

Application for stay of execution dismissed. The court held that although the applicants faced imminent eviction and would suffer substantial loss, they were guilty of inordinate delay in filing the application five years after filing their reinstatement application before the Court of Appeal. The application was filed only after receiving an eviction notice, indicating it was an afterthought and reactionary measure. The court found the delay inexcusable and constituted dilatory conduct intended to prolong litigation.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The respondent successfully sued the applicants in Civil Suit No. 04-CV-0086 of 1999, obtaining judgment declaring him the lawful owner of the suit land and the applicants as trespassers. The applicants filed Civil Appeal No. 103 of 2011 before the Court of Appeal, which was dismissed on 6 November 2018 for non-attendance. On 3 December 2018, the applicants filed Miscellaneous Application No. 376 of 2018 seeking reinstatement of the dismissed appeal. In 2023, the respondent served the applicants with an eviction and demolition notice. The applicants then filed the present application on 17 December 2025 seeking to stay execution of the 2011 High Court decree pending determination of their reinstatement application before the Court of Appeal. Two of the original parties had died and their estates were being administered by the first and third applicants.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants have lodged a notice of appeal.
  2. Whether there is serious or imminent threat of execution of the decree and if the application is not granted, the appeal would be rendered nugatory.
  3. Whether the applicants will suffer substantial loss if execution proceeds.
  4. Whether the application has been made without unreasonable delay.
  5. Whether the appeal has a high likelihood of success.
  6. Whether security has been given for due performance of the decree.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Unreasonable Delay
An application for stay of execution filed five years after filing a reinstatement application before the Court of Appeal, and only after receiving an eviction notice, constitutes inordinate and inexcusable delay that amounts to dilatory conduct intended to prolong litigation, warranting dismissal of the application.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Eviction from Long-Occupied Land
Applicants who have lived on suit land for their entire lives and derive sustenance from it will suffer substantial loss if evicted, as execution will create a state of affairs that will irreparably affect the very essential core of the applicants.
Stay of Execution — Pending Reinstatement Application — Court's Discretion
Where an application for stay of execution is brought pending determination of an application for reinstatement of a dismissed appeal rather than pending an appeal itself, the court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction and discretionary powers to consider factors under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules to determine whether sufficient cause exists to justify the grant of the remedies sought.
Stay of Execution — Dilatory Conduct — Duty to Follow Up
A judgment debtor seeking to stay execution must demonstrate positive actions taken towards reversal of the decision made against him. A party is duty bound to follow up on the progress of his case in court, and failure to do so for an extended period constitutes dilatory conduct.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (7)

  • Hon. Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Dr. Ahmed Muhammed Kasule v Greenland Bank in Receivership (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 07 of 2010)
  • Orute Aloysius and 4 Others v Alupo Esther (Civil Application No. 960 of 2023)
  • Absalom Dova, Vs. Tarbo Transporters [2013] eKLR
  • Wilson Mukiibi v James Semusambwa (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9 of 2003)
  • James Wangalwa & another V Agnes Naliaka Cheseto [2012] KEHC 1094 (KLR)
  • Apollo Bright Bweyakye and Others v Professor Sam Tulya-Muhika (Civil Application No. 239 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Veronica Athago and Another v Obbo Christopher (Miscellaneous Application No. 387 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 1381 (17 December 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.