Wakilii

Wanyama & Anor v Were (HCT-04-CV-MA-0010-2011)

High Court · [2012] UGHC 27 · 2012 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution arising from civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's land suit
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed

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 for being brought under wrong provisions of law. The application cited Order 22 rules 55-57 CPR which govern investigation of claims to attached property, not stay of execution. The correct provision is Order 43 rule 4 CPR. Applicants failed to demonstrate substantial loss, made no showing of unreasonable delay, and provided no security for due performance of the decree.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The applicants filed an application for stay of execution arising from a civil appeal. The underlying matter originated as Land Civil Suit No. TOR-01-0038 of 2007, which proceeded to appeal as HCCA No. 5A of 2011. The applicants sought to stay execution of the decree, citing provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules dealing with investigation of claims to attached property (Order 22 rules 55-57) rather than the applicable stay of execution provisions. The applicants alleged threats to demolish their homes and properties but provided no proof of any actual threat to execute. The first applicant had neither a home nor property on the suit land. No security was deposited or promised for due performance of the decree.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution was brought under the correct legal provision.
  2. Whether the applicants satisfied the requirements for a stay of execution under Order 43 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Applicable Legal Provisions
Applications for stay of execution are governed by Order 43 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, not Order 22 rules 55-57 which govern investigation of claims to and objections to attachment of attached property.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements Under Order 43 Rule 4
To succeed in an application for stay of execution under Order 43 rule 4 CPR, an applicant must demonstrate that substantial loss may result if no stay is granted, that the application was made without unreasonable delay, and that security has been given for due performance of the decree or order.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.55
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.56
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.57
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.4
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.2

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wanyama & Anor v Were (HCT-04-CV-MA-0010-2011) [2012] UGHC 27 (22 February 2012)
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.