[2017] UGHCLD 255

[2017] UGHCLD 255

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the grant of a stay of execution. There was no evidence of substantial loss, as the respondents had not applied for execution or threatened enforcement of the decree. The applicant had not diligently pursued the appeal, evidenced by the absence of a memorandum of appeal six months after filing the notice of appeal and lack of follow-up on obtaining the record of proceedings. The court further noted that the applicant was not at risk of eviction, as the respondents were the ones in possession of the land. The application was speculative, and no execution was in progress that required a stay. Consequently, the...

Citation
[2017] UGHCLD 255
Parties
Applicant: Zubeida Abdulrahman; Respondent: Oyee Leodard; Respondent: Lagu Fiesto; Respondent: Drasi Salverio
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
24 October 2017
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0033 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Judges
Stephen Mubiru, J
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Appeals Process, Substantial Loss, Security for Due Performance
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Appeals Process Substantial Loss Security for Due Performance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zubeida Abdulrahman

Applicant

Oyee Leodard

Respondent

Lagu Fiesto

Respondent

Drasi Salverio

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause for grant of a stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether substantial loss may result to the applicant if the stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay and security for due performance has been provided.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the grant of a stay of execution. There was no evidence of substantial loss, as the respondents had not applied for execution or threatened enforcement of the decree. The applicant had not diligently pursued the appeal, evidenced by the absence of a memorandum of appeal six months after filing the notice of appeal and lack of follow-up on obtaining the record of proceedings. The court further noted that the applicant was not at risk of eviction, as the respondents were the ones in possession of the land. The application was speculative, and no execution was in progress that required a stay. Consequently, the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution is dismissed.
  • The applicant shall pay costs to the respondents.