Download

Uganda Judgment

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

D'ujanga v Babirye and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1011 of 2022) [2023] UGHCLD 68 (20 March 2023)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The application for stay of execution was rendered moot because the execution of the orders in Civil Suit No.309 of 2015 had already been effected, and the subject matter was no longer in existence. The applicant's counsel had previously withdrawn a similar application before the Court of Appeal on the same grounds. As a result, the High Court found that there was no basis to grant the stay, and the application was overtaken by events. Costs were awarded to the respondents as the successful parties.

Court disposition

application dismissed as overtaken by events

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded to the respondents.

02

Material facts

Parties

Ronald Denis D'Ujanga

Applicant Counsel: Seninde

Babra Harriet Babirye

Respondent

Francis Namenya

Respondent

Mukasa Henry

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant sought a stay of execution of orders issued in Civil Suit No.309 of 2015 until the final determination of Civil Appeal No.212 of 2022, arguing that execution would render the appeal nugatory.
Respondent
The respondents opposed the application, relying on the fact that execution had already been effected and the subject matter was no longer in existence, rendering the application moot.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Civil Procedure Act cap. 71, Orders 43 rule 41 & Order 52 rules 1 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1

    A stay of execution cannot be granted where execution has already been completed and the subject matter no longer exists.

  2. 02

    General principle of civil procedure

    Costs follow the event and are awarded to the successful party.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The application for stay of execution was rendered moot because the execution of the orders in Civil Suit No.309 of 2015 had already been effected, and the subject matter was no longer in existence. The applicant's counsel had previously withdrawn a similar application before the Court of Appeal on the same grounds. As a result, the High Court found that there was no basis to grant the stay, and the application was overtaken by events. Costs were awarded to the respondents as the successful parties.

Court disposition

application dismissed as overtaken by events

  • The application for stay of execution is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded to the respondents.

Source and reliance status

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Judgment

[2023] UGHCLD 68

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

(LAND DIVISION)

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.1011 OF 2022

$\mathsf{S}$

(Arising out of Civil Suit No.309 of 2015)

RONALD DENIS D'UJANGA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

VERSUS

1. BABRA HARRIET BABIRYE

- 2. FRANCIS NAMENYA - 10 3. MUKASA HENRY::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Before: Lady Justice Alexandra Nkonge Rugadya.

Ruling.

Introduction:

The applicant brought this application by notice of motion under the provisions of Sections

15 92 & 98 of the Civil Procedure Act cap. 71, and Orders 43 rule 41 & Order 52 rules 1 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 seeking orders that;

1. An order doth issue against the respondents to stay execution of orders against the applicant vide Civil Suit No.309 of 2015 until the final determination of Civil Appeal No.212 of 2022;

20

2. Costs of the application be provided for.

Decision of court:

I have carefully perused the pleadings and submissions filed by each side in relation to this application. It has however come to my attention that another application which is similar in nature was filed and concluded by the Court of Appeal, presided over by Justice of Appeal F. M. S. Egonda Ntende. (Ref. MA No. 0038 of 2023).

As clearly reflected in the proceedings of the appellate court dated 23<sup>rd</sup> February, 2023, whereby counsel Seninde representing the applicant/appellant withdrew the application for stay of execution of the orders of this court, on the ground that execution had already been

30 effected. Since as confirmed the subject matter is no longer in existence this application has therefore been overtaken by events.

Costs awarded to the respondents.

1 Unlow of

Palsung

Alexandra Nkonge Rugadya

Judge

. . . . . . . . . . . .

$\mathbf{L}$

20<sup>th</sup> March, 2023

Delivered by each<br> Onlong<br> $\frac{1}{24|3|}$ $\frac{1}{2023}$

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Civil Procedure Act cap. 71

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.