[2009] UGHC 97

[2009] UGHC 97

The court found that the application for stay of execution was made after the expiry of the time allowed for appealing, and thus did not fall under Order 43 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant failed to show that his application for leave to appeal out of time had prospects of success or to provide a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] UGHC 97
Parties
Applicant: Livingstone Nsumba Membe; Respondent: Fibiano Mayoga
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Application No. 632 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Appeals Out of Time, Land Tribunal Judgments, Substantial Loss, Inherent Jurisdiction
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Appeals Out of Time Land Tribunal Judgments Substantial Loss Inherent Jurisdiction

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Livingstone Nsumba Membe

Applicant

Fibiano Mayoga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment and decree of the Luwero Land Tribunal pending an intended appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the application was brought without unreasonable delay.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss if the stay is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for stay of execution was made after the expiry of the time allowed for appealing, and thus did not fall under Order 43 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant failed to show that his application for leave to appeal out of time had prospects of success or to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court held that the applicant did not demonstrate that he would suffer substantial loss if the stay was not granted, nor did he show that the application was genuine. The court emphasized that a successful party should not be deprived of the fruits of judgment without good reason, and that the applicant's delay and lack of evidence...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs.