[2025] UGHCLD 91
The court found that the applicant had not filed any application to set aside the exparte judgment, and was merely seeking a stay of execution without any pending substantive matter before the court. The court emphasized that a stay of execution is only appropriate where it is ancillary to a pending application or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] UGHCLD 91
- Parties
- Applicant: Ndaula Arafat; Applicant: Yiga Shaban; Respondent: Kasibante James Zawula
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application No. 137 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- Nassuna Matovu, J
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Exparte Judgment, Service of Process, Abuse of Court Process
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ndaula Arafat
Applicant
Yiga Shaban
Applicant
Kasibante James Zawula
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution in the absence of a pending application to set aside the exparte judgment.
- 2 Whether failure to serve Summons to file defence justifies a stay of execution without further action by the applicant.
- 3 Whether the application amounts to an abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had not filed any application to set aside the exparte judgment, and was merely seeking a stay of execution without any pending substantive matter before the court. The court emphasized that a stay of execution is only appropriate where it is ancillary to a pending application or proceeding, and cannot be granted in perpetuity. The absence of any such application rendered the request for a stay of execution baseless and amounted to an abuse of court process. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
# **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (LAND DIVISION) MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 137 OF 2025 (ARISING FROM EMA NO. 227 OF 2024) (ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO. 792 OF 2019)**
#### **1. NDAULA ARAFAT**
**2. YIGA SHABAN :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANTS**
#### **VERSUS**
## **KASIBANTE JAMES ZAWULA ::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE FLAVIA NASSUNA MATOVU PROCEEDINGS:**
#### **Date: 16/5/2025**
Matter was scheduled for 19/5/2025. However, trial judge has another official date. It is therefore adjourned to 19/6/2025 at 10:30a.m.
## **Signed: Flavia Nassuna Matovu Judge**
#### **Date: 19/6/2025 at 10:30a.m.**
Mr. Mungi Michael and Mr. Twehereirwe Bruno from M/s Factum Associated Advocates for applicant.
Applicant: absent
Respondent: present
Ms. Nsekanaabwe Immaculate from M/s Sterlin Associated Advocates for Respondent.
### **Mr. Tuhereirwe:**
I am ready to proceed. The applicant is seeking for stay of execution because he was not served with Summons to file defence in Civil Suit No. 792 of 2019. He was only served with Notice to Show Cause why execution should not issue.
He has intentions of applying for review and setting aside of the exparte judgment.
### **Court Ruling:**
After carefully studying the pleadings in this application, I have noted as follows:-
- a) The applicant is merely seeking for an order of stay of execution without any pending matter in the court. - b) Wheras it might be true that he was not served with Summons to file defence, he has not filed any application to set aside the exparte judgment that was passed against him. - c) The court cannot stay execution in eternity. Any stay of execution should be pending disposal of some matter in court. - d) The application is therefore an abuse of court process and is accordingly hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
**Judge**
**19/6/2025**