[2019] UGCA 2106

[2019] UGCA 2106

The Court found that the applicant had satisfied the requirements for an interim stay of execution. The applicant had first sought a stay in the High Court, which was dismissed, thus complying with Rule 42(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. There was a pending Notice of Appeal and substantive application, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] UGCA 2106
Parties
Applicant: Ankole Riverline Hotel Limited; Respondent: Kakooza Mathias
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 317 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Interim Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
Kasule, Ag. JA
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Eviction Proceedings, Interim Orders, Appeals Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Eviction Proceedings Interim Orders Appeals Process

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ankole Riverline Hotel Limited

Applicant

Kakooza Mathias

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Interim Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim order of stay of execution to prevent eviction from the suit property pending determination of the substantive application and appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the application is properly before the Court of Appeal in compliance with procedural requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant had satisfied the requirements for an interim stay of execution. The applicant had first sought a stay in the High Court, which was dismissed, thus complying with Rule 42(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. There was a pending Notice of Appeal and substantive application, and the threat of eviction was uncontroverted by the respondent. The Court held that to preserve the right of appeal and prevent irreparable harm, it was necessary to grant an interim order restraining eviction from the suit property until the substantive application or appeal is determined or further order of the Court.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • An interim order is issued restraining eviction of the applicant and those deriving title from or through the applicant from the suit property until disposal of Miscellaneous Application No. 316 of 2019 and/or Civil Appeal No. 270 of 2019, whichever is disposed of earlier, or subject to any other order by the Court.
  • Costs of this application to abide the outcome of the substantive application or appeal.