[2025] UGCA 23

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT KAMPALA CIVIL APPLICATION NO.717 OF 2024 (ARTSTNG FROM CML APPEAL NO.922 OF 2o24l (ARTSTNG FROM CrVrL SUIT NO.10 OF 2o24l.

1. ENG. ODONGOOKUNE 2. MR. OJWANG OPOTA 3. WILLIE OMODO OMODO 4. OTIM TOM 5. OKELLOIJA]|/IZA 6. VINCENT I OLING........ .............. APPLICANTS \IERSUS 1. OBIA DENIS ACILA 2. BENJAMIN OKII............. ........... RESPONDENTS

> MR. JUSTICE CHtrBORION BARISHAKI, JA (SINGLE JUDGE)

## RULING

## Introduction

- [1] This Application is for an order of stay of execution of the judgment and orders issued by the High Court of Lira in Civil Suit No. lO of 2024. - [2] The background to the Application is that the Respondents instituted High Court Civil Suit No. lO ol 2024 challenging the election of the 1st Applicant as the traditional or cultural leader/ Paramount Chief of Lango on the ground that his election was illegal, null and void. In their defence, the Applicants pleaded that the election of the 1st Applicant followed the act of abdication from the office of Paramount Chief by His Highness Yosum Odur Ebii. That

it was after this abdication that the l"t Applicant was elected by majority of the council of clan heads as the new Paramount Chief of Lango, and they contended at trial that the election and the result of the said election were valid.

- [3] The i"t, 2"d and 3'd Applicants also lodged a counterclaim against the Respondents together with other 5 individuals who are not party to this Application that is, Dickson Ogwang Okul, Dr. Dan Okello, Prof. Richard Nam, Dan Opito Odwee and Okwir Jaramogi Dennis. In their counterclaim, the said Applicants majorly challenged the parallel election organized by the Respondents together with the rest ofthe counter-defendants, on the ground that the 1"t Applicant had already been elected by the majority of the clan leaders of Lango, and subsequently his election published in the Ofltcial Uganda Gazette as such. - [4] On 31"t October 2024 lhe High Court delivered judgment in favor of the Respondents declaring the 1"t Applicant to have been illegally elected as the Paramount Chief of Lango. The 1"t Applicant's installation as the duly elected Paramount Chief was permanently injuncted. The Court also made a declaration that His Highness Yosum Odur Ebii was still the Paramount Chief of Lango arrd the Minister of Gender, Labour and Social Development was directed to re-gazette him in the Official Gazette as such. The Court also declared the election of Dickson Ogwal Okul (the 3'a Counter Defendant) as Paramount Chief of Lango illegal ald forbade him from performing the functions of Paramount Chief. - [5] The Applicants being dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court lodged their notice of appeal and wrote a letter requesting for typed copy of proceedings. The Applicants filed an application for stay of execution in the High Court which was dismissed on 29th November 2024, l:,ence their filing this application in the Court of Appeal. - [6] The Notice of Motion is supported by an afhdavit in support and ^a supplementary aff,idavit both deponed by Engineer Dr. Michae I Moses Odongo Okune on his own behalf as the l"t Applicant and on behalf of the rest of the Applicants who issued him with a letter of authority. The two

affidavits set forth the following grounds upon which the Application is premised;-

- I. The Applicants are dissatisfied with the judgment and orders of the Hon. Phillip Odoki in Liro HCCS 10 of 2024 deliuered uia email on 31\* October, 2024. - 2. The Applicants haue lodged a notice of oppeol together uith ^a letter requesting for tgped and certified copg of reard of proceedings on the 1"t of Nouember 2024. - 3. The Applicants haue further lodged a memorandum of appea| as guided at this Court's registry, on ECCMIS and was generated Ciuil Appeal No. 922 of 2024 uthich appeal has a strong likelihood o/success. - 4. There is a senous threat of execution before the heaing of the p endin g su b stanti ue application. - 5. That on 41h Nouember 2024, third parties wrote to the Minister of Gender, Labour & Social Deuelopment fonaarding the orders of the Coutt and demanding that the Minister complies uith the orders for de-gozettement of the l"t Applicant and re-go.z,ettement of Yosum Odur Ebii. Their letter uas responded to by the Minister requesting cerToin further information lo assisl the Ministry to comply ruith the orders of Court. - 6. In an attempt to exealte the orders of the High Cou/i, the Respondents and other people including Dickson Ogwang Okul, who tuas the 3d Counter Defendant in the High Court case, are persistentlA attacking the offices of the cultural institution wauing the copA of the judgment of the High Court. As a result crtminal complaints haue been filed such as SD/ 37/ 18/ 2024. - 7. That the Respondents are prouocotiue and making a number of ciminal complaints to police when accosted bg the clan heads aligned to the Applicants - trho are the majoitA - all in the

names of execTtting these court orders uhich ule are now seeking to staA. TheA ore nou) using the orders to frustrate actiuities of the Applicants generally as qtlhtral leaders.

- 8. That the Applicants applied for stay of execution in the High Court uhich is the tial court a.nd on 29h Nouember 2024, the High Court dismissed the Applicants' application for stog of exeantion hence this application. - 9. That if this application is not granted, the Applicants' intended appeal shall be rendered nugatory. - TO. That the Appliconts stand to suffer ireparable loss once this application is not granted. - 1"l. That upon the election of the l.t Applicont as Paromount Chief elect, he resigned his cttlturol position of Au-titong (clan chiefl uthich u.tas immediatelg, through a itual he conducted, filled by another clan member. The 1d Applicant also reduced his posf retirement contract peiod tuith Ministry of Works and Transport from 3 Aears to 4 months ending 31d October 2024 in anticipation of carrying out his duties os Paramount Chief of Lango. - l2. That there is no other ga-zetted Paramount Chief since the one replaced bg the Applicant abdicated and u.tos de-gozetted. - L3. That the judgment has also affected access lo public funds necessory for the institution's operations, causing financial constraints that further undermine its functionalitg. That this is so because the Respondents are actiuely using the judgment to demand for public funds ond other facilities due to the ld Appticant ond his administration uithout recourse and get once these sums are spent without accountabilitg then it's impossible to recouer them.

- l4. That the Respondents haue been purportedlg appointed as cobinet ministers bg Yosum Odur in a list of released cabinet appointments in an attempt to giue effect to the judgment. That this demonstrotes a relationship betu.teen the Respondents and the possible attempt to de-gozette the current cultural leadership, further undermining the institution's stabilitg and causing irreparable damage. - ¹⁵. That the balance of conuenience lies in fauor of the Applicants . - l6. That this application has been instituted without delag. - IT. That the Applicants haue deposited secuitg for costs and are willing and readg to prouide seatity for due performonce if need be except that the judgment appeoled from is none monetary. - lS. That it is in the interest of justice and/ or in the fair administration of substantiue justice that this honorable court grants this application. - ¹⁹. That the judgment has curtailed the roles of the 3d Applicont, the Speaker of the council, tuho is unable to conuene council meetings, leauing the council paralyzed. and all culturol programs in limbo. That If the judgment is not staged, ireparable hann u.till be caused to the Lango Cultural Institution as ituals and practices to be conducted bg the Applicants by uirtue oftheir offices and bound by time cannot be recouered or compensated for pecuniaily. - 2O. That the judgment failed to prouide guidance on how the speaker's position could be managed, leoutng the cultural institution in an au.tktuard ond uncertain position. - 2l. That the members of the Electorol Commission (4th, 3h and 6th Applicants) now face the isk of being remoued from office under the new legal frameuork created bg the judgment, despite being spared bg the trtal courl. A stag u.tould preserue their

appointments and allow them to conduct essential elections for clan chiefs, council committee members, and other keg roles necessary for the smooth running of the institution pending appeal.

- 22. That the judgment has also affected access to public funds necessary for the institution's operations, causing financiol constraints that further undermine its functionalitg. Ihis is so because the Respondents are actiuelg using the judgment to demand for public funds and other facilities due to the 1d Applicant and his administration u.tithout recourse to procedures and get once this sums are spent uithout acauntabilitg then it's impossible to recouer them. - 23. That the Respondents haue been purportedly appointed as cabinet ministers bg Mr. Yosum Odur in a list of released cabinet appointments in an attempt to giue effect to the judgment/ orders/ decree. This demonstrates a relationship betueen the Respondents and the possible attempt to de-go-z,ette the anrrent alltural leadership, further undermining the institution's stabilitg and causing ineparable damage. - 24 . That the cabinet/ leadership uthich is sprung up as a result of the High Court judgment has recentlg issued a reE)est to rtd col. Tonng Otoa for him to uacate the olficial residence of the Inngo Prime Minister. - [7] The Respondents opposed the application and filed three affidavits deponed by Obia Denis Aci1a, Benjamin Okii being the lst arrd 2"d Respondents, and Mr Dickson Ogwang who is not a party to this Application. The grounds in opposition as contained in the l"t and 2"d Respondents'two affidavits are as follows;-

1. That the orders issued by the High Court in Civil Suit No. 10 of 2024 are self-executing in nature and thus cannot be stayed.

$\overline{1}$

$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}}$

- 2. That the deposit of security is irrelevant since the Applicants have not satisfied the other grounds for stay of execution. - 3. That a serious threat of execution is not a $\frac{1}{2}$ ground to be considered when determining *an application for stay of execution.* - *4. That they have never written to the Minister* of Gender, Labour and Social Development or even attached the offices of the cultural union. - 5. That the Applicants have not demonstrated *how their appeal to the Court of Appeal will be rendered nugatory if this Application is* disallowed. - 6. That the Applicants have not demonstrated *how they will suffer irreparable damage as* individuals in respect of the cultural *institution.* - 7. That the $1^{st}$ Applicant's purported election *was annulled by the High Court of Uganda* holden at Lira. - 8. That at the time the Court nullified the election of the $1$ ^st Applicant, he had not yet assumed office as the *Won Nyaci* (Paramount Chief) of Lango as there was still a reigning Won Nyaci, Yosum Odur Ebii who had been and is still actively and legallg performing oll the functions of the office of the Paramount Chief of Lango.

- 9. That this Application is highlg misleading since the 1\* Applicant has neuer been a legallg recognized Paramount Chief and as such i/'s false for him to claim that his actiuities and or cultural institution actiuities are being cartailed and in ang cose as dlreadA noted his election utas nullified before ascending to the throne of Paramount Chief of Lango. - lo. That this Application is filed bg the Applicants in their indiutdual capacities for their oun personal benefit and not for the interest of the people of Longo and there are no actiuities that haue been curtailed bg the High Court nullifging the election of the lst Applicant. - 11. That the l"t Applicant's election utas onnulled afi.er court found that his sctid election utas illegally conducted and his subsequent gazettement utas illegal and as such court conectlA ordered for degazettement and in anA case that gazettement does not make one ^a Paramount Chief. - l2. That the Applicants haue not been in any uag in charge of the atltural institution and the High Court judgment only concretized the position of the Paramount Chief uthom the Applicants hod tied to illegallg remoue from his position.

- l3. That the Respondents' appointment as cabinet minister is uithin the mandate of the Paramount Chief and it's not necessary to giue effect to the judgment. - ¹4 . That the bolance of conuenience does not lie in fouour of the 1"t Applicant who has neuer been or performed and/or assumed the functions of the oJfice of won-nyaci of Iango since there eists the reigning Won Ngaci of Lango His Highness Yosum Odur Dbii tuho is s/ill on his throne and is perfonning all the functions of the office. - 1i. Thot granting this application will alter the status quo.

[8]. The third affidavit in reply which was deponed by a one Dickson Ogwang contained the following grounds of opposition;-

- 76. That the l.t Applicant's coronation uLhich utas scheduled for 2"d Nouember 2024 did not take place because court nullified the 7st Applicant's and his election on 3l"t October 2O24. - ¹⁷. Ttnt the status quo is that the 1"t Applicant is not the Poromount Chief of Lango and that his claim to the throne of Paramount Chief of Lango tuas also nullified bg the court and the seat of Won Nyaci reuerted back to Mzee Yosum

Odur, the Paramount Chief uhose abdication that utas meant to take effect on l.t Nouember 2O24 utas nullified bg the Court on 37.t October 2O24.

- 18. Ttnt anV stag of execation granted to the Applicants must egtallg applg to him. - 19. That a stay of execution of orders of the High Court in Ciuil Suit No. 1O of 2024 means that he can also go ahead tuith hls claim to the throne as Paramount Chief of Lango in pursuit of his cultural ights as duly elected Paramount Chief of Lango through adult suffrage of ouer 75,000 people of Longo chiefdom. - 20. That Yosum Odur is still Paramount Chief and thus granting a stay of execution utould lead to and create more confusion as there uould be three Paramount Chiefs to the throne uthich utill create more hardship and confusion in Lango. - 2l. TLnt the 1.t Applicant uill not suffer ong substantial loss or damage in the euent that the application for stag is not granted because tte ha,s neuer been coronated as Paramount Chief of Lango as the euent did not take place, and he

is not enjoging any benefits as one, both before and afier the judgment.

- 22. That the failure to grant the orders sought in this application connot render the appeal nugatory as the people of Lango chiefdom are currently paying allegiance to and being serued bg His Highness Yosum Odur Ebii the Paramount Chief and as and uhen the Court of Appeal determines the appeal pending, u.thoeuer is supposed to be the Paramount Chief u;ill toke ouer office. - 23. That the granting of the orders sought uill create d uacuum in the leadership of Lango as it tuill mean thot there is no cultural leoder for Lango uthich tuould create more absurditg and not in the best interest of justice. - [8] At the hearing of the appiication, Mr. Joseph Matsiko ald Mr. Adam Makmot Kibwanga appeared jointly for the Applicants while the Respondents were represented by Mr. Luganda .

Both counsel frled written submissions in accordance with the Court's directions.

## Appllcants Submissions

[9] Counsel for the Applicants submitted that where an unsuccessful party is exercising their unrestricted right of appeal, it is the duty of court to make such orders for staying execution of the judgment appealed from as this will prevent the appeal from being rendered nugatory as was stated in l7llson us.

Church (7879) aolume 72 Chd 454 folloued ln Global Capttal Saoe 2OO4 Ltd & Anor us, Altce Oklror & Anor HChIA No. 485/2O72. They added that the rationale for these conditions is to maintain the status quo of the property or subject matter that is at stake if the stay of execution is not granted, and to preserve the intended appeal and not to render it nugatory.

- [10] On whether the appeal has a likelihood of success, counsel submitted that it is a matter of grave error to hold a person who was overwhelmingly elected as Paramount Chief as not having been validly elected when even electoral law and principles ignore any non-compliance (if any) that does not a-ffect the expressed will of the people. That it would indeed be grave if the status quo is not maintained and an abdicated former leader is imposed on the people against their wil1, and against his wish, and that would greatly contravene the constitutional right of the people of Lango to their cultural rights, and undermine the right of the l"t Applicant to lead the people who chose him. - [11] On whether the application will suffer irreparable damage or that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if the stay is not granted, counsel submitted that the 1st Applicant will suffer substantial loss if this injunction is not granted because he was an Awitong (Clan Chief) of his clan before being elected as Won Nyaci. That he vacated the office of the clan chief to concentrate on being the Won Nyaci and culturally he cannot go back to the same position. That when he was elected and gazetted his status traditionally and socially changed to Won Nyaci and he had to forego his post-emplo1,rnent contract with Ministry of Works as commissioner which he had been engaged in ever since he got early retirement from public service in 2O 14. Further, the lst Applicant has started carrying out his roles as the Won Nyaci of which are ritual and spiritual and losing time on them is irrecoverable and stopping him is an assail on his socio-cultural rights as enshrined in Uganda's constitution. That cultural entitlements are immeasurable and losing them cannot be atoned by compensation and yet if the l"t Applicant is de-gazetted arrd the rest of the Applicants are denied the opportunity to be what they were before the judgment appealed against was delivered, say the speaker or

members of the electoral commission, then all their cultural rights would be taken away for a period of time which cal never be recovered and yet granting the stay of execution will not tal<e away the Respondents' rights as none of them is on record of being elected Won Ngaci, speaker or members of the Electoral Commission or wanting to become one.

- Il2l Counsel further submitted that if the Applicants are successful in their Appeal, they will not be able to recover from Yosum Odur because he is not a party to the appeal and thus occasion an irreparable loss. That since the 1"t Applicant is an established engineer who ran major nationa1 and international projects, and was a former chairperson of the engineers' registration board, his de-gazettement which would be a public notice would greatly injure his position and standing and inconvenience him as this will damage his reputation, no amount of compensation can atone for that. - [13] They further submitted that the process of executing the Court orders has commenced and which has greatly interrupted with the functioning of the chiefdom. That this took the form of a letter dated 4th November 2024 written to the Minister of Gender, Labour and Socia,l Development forwarding the orders of the Court for the minister's execution by de-gazettinB the 1"t Applicant and re-gazetting Yosum Odur as the Paramount Chief. That the lst Respondent posing as prime minister had written a letter to the Minister of Gender, Labour and Social Development demanding the release of 2O0 million shillings to be used for activities of the Lango Cultural Foundation. That another letter dated 9th December 2024 was written by a one Fredick Ogwal Oyee posing as the Prime Minister of La:ngo Cultural Foundation demanding for the handover of a house at Ireda Estate. - [14] Counsel submitted further that the 1"t Applicant's loss is irreparable and cannot be atoned for in damages because he was enthroned as Paramount Chief following the abdication by Yosum Odur. That the judgment introduced third parties to the main suit whom the l"t Applicant, if no stay of execution is issued stopping such third parties from enforcing the said orders, cannot have recourse against those third parties should they act in ways that introduce further parties who like them are not party to the

appeal and the concluded main suit. That the Applicants will have no recourse on appeal against such parties.

[15] They submitted further that the provision for security for due performarce of the decree is not a condition precedent for grant of stay of execution as portrayed in the decided case of Imperlal Royal Hotel Ltd & 2 Ors os. Ochan Daniel, Mlsc. Appllcation IVo. 777 of 2072. That additionally the Court did not issue any monetary awards or property related awards that would warrant the Appiicants to provide security for due performance of the decree. That the orders in this case by their nature do not attract any security for due performance of the decree ald even so the judgment appealed against did not award costs to any party as each party was ordered to bear its costs.

## Respondents Submlsslons

116l Counsel for the Respondents opposed the Application and submitted that it was imperative to point out to Court that this Appiication suffers from legal mootness since the orders issued by the High Court in Civil Suit 10 of 2024 are declaratory orders which are self-executing in nature and thus cannot be stayed. That the abdication of Yosum Odur was to take effect on 1st November 2024 w!;rich did not happen while the l"t Applicant had organized his coronation to take place on 2"d November 2024 a day after the abdication which never happened. That there is therefore no present live controversy in respect of this Application which affects the rights of the parties. That the High Court judgment which annulled the intended abdication was delivered on 3lst October 2024 a day before the abdication took effect on l"t November 2024. In essence, Counsel argues, a stay of execution of this particular order could only be possible if it was obtained before lst November 2024 whidn would have the effect of making the abdication have effect. That the abdication having never taken effect as a result of the court order, the natural consequence was that Yosum Odur remained the reigning Paramount Chief of Lango as correctly ordered by the High Court. That even the 1"t Applicant's coronation slated for 2"d November 2024 did, not take place. - IlTl He submitted that the nature of the orders granted by the High Court were declaratory in nature, self-executing and cannot be stayed, and the grant of a stay would instead alter the statu s quo. That the l"t Applicant wishes to carry out activities of becoming the Paramount Chief including coronation and running a parallel government besides the one of the reigning Paramount Chief Yosum Odur whom the 1"t Applicant intended to replace. That this Application if allowed would mean that the Applicants appeal would have been disposed/determined using this Application since the Applicants would have achieved the orders they are seeking in the appeal. - [18] Counsel submitted further that the appeal has no chance of success because the appeal to the court of appeal is not bona ltde and does not raise any serious and pertinent legal questions worth adjudication and pronouncement by the Court since the 1"t Applicant had never been coronated and or taken over office since abdication was to take effect from lst November 2024, yet the judgment was delivered on 31"t October 2024. That the 1"t Applicant was illegally gazetted. - [19] Counsel submitted that the Applicants have no substartia-l loss they wiil suffer because if the Court of Appeal was to declare the 1st Applicarrt's election as valid, he would be at liberty to assume the office of Paramount Chief since it has not been abolished. That similarly by the reigning Paramount Chief Yosum Odur continuing to serve as he has been doing for the past 24 years, there is no loss or hardship that will be occasioned to the people of Lango or denial of their cultural rights as submitted by the Applicants because he was never chased from the throne, not rejected by his people or voted out and he is currently performing his duties as Paramount Chief since his abdication did not take effect due to the court judgment. That the Applicants have not adduced any evidence to demonstrate that the reigning Paramount Chief is having any problems being on the throne as ordered by Court. That to the contrary the grant of the orders prayed for in the instant application will occasion more hardships and confusion in Lango chiefdom as it will mean Lango will now have three reigning Paramount

Chiefs to wit; Yosum Odur, the 1"t Applicant and Ogwang Dickson Okul. That the current status quo is that Yosum Odur is performing his duties as Paramount Chief.

## Rejolnder by Appfcant

- I2Ol Counsel submitted that the judgment delivered a day before the former Paramount Chief Yosum Odur hands over office does not change the status quo so long as the decree is not forma1Iy executed. That it is not automatic that a judgment changes status quo and in the instant case the status quo was that the former Paramount Chief abdicated and a new Paramount Chief gazetled and indeed started working on 2nd November 2024 and he is still working. - I2ll F\:rther that the Respondents have no justihcation to fight for a man who abdicated on his own and has not shown concern that the l"t Applicant's occupation of the office of Paramount Chief of Lango hurts him in any way. - l22l Counsel further submitted that a stay can only be granted in favour of the Applicants and therefore Ogwang Dickson cannot benefit from it not being a party and having admitted that he lays no claim to the Paramount Chieftainship. That there is only one gazette Paramount Chief who is the 1"t Applicant and a stay of execution would help him remain gazelte and useful to his people until determination of the appeal. That Yosum Odur has not approached Court for protectiosn or stated anyvhere that he intends to be re-gazetted. That Yosum Odur is no longer laying any claim except he is conducting activities as an ex-Paramount Chief of Lango without pretense of resuming the position of Paramount Chief. - I23l Counsel further submitted that denying the Applicants a stay while trying the appeal would be a continued violation of their fundamental human rights in a manner that can never be atoned as the cultural dignity and time lost can never be recovered or compensated.

## Analysis

l24l I have carefully considered the submissions and the authorities cited by both parties.

The jurisdiction of this Court to grant a stay of execution is set out in Rule 6(2)(b) and Rule 2(2) of the Rules of this Court which mandates the Court to grant a stay of execution, an injunction or order of stay of proceedings on such terms as the Court may deem fit. This Court has inherent powers to make such order as may be necessary for attaining the ends of justice.

[25] The principles upon which an application of such a nature can be granted were clearly stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v The Atl,orne! Generdl and Another, Constifuttlonal Application No. 06 of 2O73 as follows;

"In order for the Court to grant an application for stag of execution;

- 1. The Appliunt must establish that his oppeal has a likelihood of success; or a pima facie case of his right to appeal. - 2. It must also be established that the Applicant will suffer irreparable damage or that the appeal u-till be rendered nugatory if a stag is not granted. - 3. If 1 and 2 aboue haue not been established, Courl must consider uhere the balance of conuenience lies. - 4. That the Applicant must olso establish thot the application was instifiited tuithout delag."

[27]. I shall therefore set out to consider whether the current Application meets the criteria set out rn Sekilcubo.

[28] Before proceeding with the consideration, I must deal with the point raised by Counsel for the Respondents; as to whether this application is moot. I have noticed that this point was handled by the lower court in Eng. Odongo & Others V Obia & Anor, High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 126 ol2024,l find no reason to depart from the decision of the High Court in this case, where the judge at page I ¹ paragraph 20 stated that;

"In the instant cose, the declaratory orders in High Court Ciuil Suit No. 1O of 2024 are not stand-alone declaration of ights. Theg are accompanied by orders of injunctions and consequential orders directing the Minister of Gender, lnbour and Sociol Deuelopment to degazette the ld Applicant as the Paramount Chief of Lango and to re-gazette His Highness Yosum Odur Dbii as the Paramount Chief of Lango. This Court can therefore grant an order of stag of execution of the declarations if the conditions set out in the law are met bg the Applicants."

1291. \n light of the above, it is my finding that the orders of Court arising from the judgment of the High Court are not moot but are executable orders against which an application for stay of execution can be instituted and entertained by a relevant Court of law such as this.

I will thus proceed to delve into the substance of the application itself.

[30]. Regarding whether there is a prima facie case with likelihood of success established in this Application by the Applicants, the l st Applicant listed under paragraph 14 of his affidavit what the proposed grounds of appeal which are 13 in number. Upon my perusal of the 13 grounds of appeal, I find that the Applicants have raised points of law and fact which merit argument before this Court. I am persuaded by the decision in Stanleg Kang'ethe KlnydnJut V Tong Ketter & 5 Others (2073) e KLR that:,

"An arguable appeal is not one which must necessailg succeed, but one uthich ought to be argued fully before the Court; one uLhich is not fiuolous." The listed grounds of oppeal read together utith the Judgment indicate that the appeal raises seious grounds that meit argument before, and seious consideration bg this Court.

[31]. I therefore frnd that the Applicants have established that they have a prima facie case with a likelihood of success.

[32]. As to whether the Applicants will suffer irreparabie damage or that the appeal will be rendered nugatory ifa stay is not gralted, the Applicants under paragraphs lO, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, lA, 79 ofthe 1st Applicant's affidavit in support of the

notice of motion, as well as under paragraphs 4,5,6,7, 8 and 9 of the supplementary affidavit state that the Applicants stand to suffer irreparable loss once execution and implementation of the judgment of the High Court dated 31"t October 2024 is allowed. The Applicants demonstrated that the judgment reinstated Yosum Odur Ebii who had voluntarily abdicated the office of Paramount Chief of Lango and replaced by the 1"t Applicant whose recognition and election was pending coronation. That the l"t Applicant had taken several steps to conform to his new office after overwhelmingly being voted as the new Paramount Chief. The 1"t Applicant demonstrated that he being a qualified engineer he had resigned his job by reducing his post-retirement contract period with the Ministry of Works and Transport from the 3 years period down to merely 4 months in anticipation of carrying out his duties as Paramount Chief (Won Nyaci). Furthermore, that upon his election to the office of Paramount Chief, he resigned his cultural position of clan chief which was immediately taken up by another person. Moreover, Yosum Odur upon what appeared to be his voluntary abdication, was de-gazetted by the Minister of Gender, Labour and Social Development, as the Paramount Chief of Lango and also gazetted the 1st Applicant as the new Paramount Chief of Lango.

[33] Black's Lau Dlctlondry, th Edition defines the term irreparable damage to mean damage that cannot be easily ascertained because there is no fixed pecuniary standard measurement.

[34] I find that indeed there is irreparable loss to be suffered by the Applicants seeing that the Respondents and not Yosum Odur Ebii, went to the High Court to challenge the election of the 1st Applicant. Yosum Odur Ebii did not go to Court to challenge this election. It could therefore be argued that Yosum Odur having abdicated Paramount Chieftainship voluntarily, he could not and he did not challenge the election of his successor, the 1"t Applicant which occurred subsequent to his voluntary abdication. Therefore, having taken several irreversible actions such as resigning his job and his offrce of Clan Head to be present himself for the office of Paramount Chief, the 1"1 Applicant will suffer irreparable harm if this application is not granted, as implementing the decree

would mean that the process of reinstalling the abdicated Paramount Chief could be completed, and the l"t Applicant is degazetted, which would take him out of reach of the seat of Paramount Chief, should he win the appeal. I Iind that this is harm that is not oniy substantial but also irreparable.

[35] As to where the balance of convenience lies, it is trite, as reiterated in Sekikubo (supra), that this ground applies if the Court is in doubt as to the likelihood of success of the appeal, or the existence of irreparable harm. If there were to be any doubt in this case, I have to consider where the balance of convenience lies.

[36] The Applicants averred under paragraphs 21 of the affidavit in support of the application that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Applicants. That the lst Applicant was elected as Paramount Chief of Lango and gazette as such, and it would be grave inconvenience to him and the people of Lango to be dega2elted. as Paramount Chief and to have the abdicated Yosum Odur, a non-party to the matters, to be reinstated through re-gazettement, as Paramount Chief, before the appeal is heard and determined. That the Respondents are two individuals who lose nothing if a stay is granted because they do not represent the entire Lango community and have nothing to lose as individuals.

[37]. I agree that the Applicants, and in particular the 1st Applicant, stand to suffer more inconvenience than the Respondents if the judgment and decree are executed. This is because Yosum Odur Ebii had abdicated his position as Paramount Chief voluntarily and did not put up or join any legal challenge against the 1"t Applicant's election as his replacement, and as such there would be no inconvenience or lesser inconvenience suffered by Yosum Odur Ebii, or the Respondents if the current status quo is maintained pending the hearing and disposal of the appeaJ.

[38]. I am fortified in this reasoning by the definition of abdication in Black's Laut Dlctionary, th Edltlon which defines abdication to be the act of renouncing or abardoning privileges or duties of a high office, such as a King. Since Yosum Odur

Ebii appears to have abdicated his office voluntarily, the High Court's reinstatement as Paramount Chief wouid be argued to be forcing him to act contrary to his wishes without according him a fair hearing on whether he wished to once again perform the requisite duties. The Respondents who were not his representatives in the suit would in any event suffer no inconvenience if the abdicated Yosum Odur is not regazetted as the Paramount Chief.

[4O] It is not in contention or doubt that this application was instituted without delay.

[41] In conclusion, and for the reasons stated above, I lind that the Applicants have satisfied the conditions for the grant of a stay of execution. I accordingly grant the Application with the following orders;

- 1. An order of stay of execution of the decree in Lira High Court Civil Suit No lO of 2024 is hereby granted pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal emanating from the said suit. - 2. Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the Appeal.

I so order. Dated at Kampala tt ir ... P\*..lIa^v ot 2025 t\_ Cheborion Barishaki JUSTICE OF APPEAL dq.