Lubega v Nassimbwa (Civil Application 122 of 2024) [2024] UGCA 219 (21 August 2024)

THE, REPUBLIC OF UGANDA lN .t.t I E C()t I I{,t. O1,. At'l't,tAl, ot. I i(;ANt)A A,t. KAM I'At,A ('tvlt, At,PLICA't'toN No.0l22 0I 2024 (.1t'i.sittg/i om( iril -l1tptul :\'o. ll,\ ol )0)2) lllil WlrllN Lt tt t..(;.\ \tost,.s \l,r,l.l(.\\'l' VllltSt IS \,,\SSI }I I}\!,\ S\ I,I Y I,\ It t.. s t,( ) \ t) t,. \'l' Introd uction l.l 'l'his application was brought undcr, Ilulcs 2(2),6(2)(b),42,43,46 and 47 ol thc Judicaturc (Cour1 olAppcal) I{ulcs SI l3-10, lor Ordcrs that; u. Stul'of exacution &tth issua slaying lha cxeculio,l rs/ thc.ludgnrcnt und l)ecrce in (;ivil Suit No.-12 d 2020 pending the oututmc of ('ivil lppcul No. 118 ol 2022. b.'l'hc t'osls o/ this upplicution be in the cuusa. 2.1 'l'hc application is prcmiscd on thc grounds as {ollows: a. ,4 Noticc and mentorandunt o/ lppcul rrus.filcd in thi.t court. h. 'l hut the appcul i.s;,c1 1,t 6. determinad hy this horuturuhle courl. c. 'l'hut lhe lla.spondant hos ulrutdl, upplicd./itr cxeculion o/ lha dcc'rtc in ('it'il Suit No. 12 o/ 2020 and thi,r axccutiotl will not onl), randar the 's intendcd uppcal nugulory but ulso dcny lhc righl lo uppcul. d. 'l'hat the hos hud an upplicutktn ./br stay of'exccution in tha high ('ourt undar lvlisce lktncous /lppliL'dlion No. 3069 urising ottt of' I K'1'-00- L D- l': M,,1 -0 3 2 1 - 202 3 dismisse tl. 1 IT U I,IN(; O I.' C[I II ISTOPI I I.]R (;ASI I I IIA I}A K I.],, .I A (sl N(; t.E .IUS'l'lcFl) e. 'l hut il is.iu.\t und liquitubla thut this upplicution is grolcl h), this ('ourl. 3.1 'l'hc application was opposcd by an allidavil sworn by Nassimbwa Sylivia on thc ground that thc application is lrivolous, vcxatious, bad in law misconccivcd, and an abusc ol'thc court proccss. Rcprcsentation 4. | 'l'hc Applicant rcprcscntcd hirnscll-. Mr. Karoro lirancis rcprcscntcd thc I{cspondcnt. 'l'hc parrics Iilcd writtcn submissions. Submissions bv thc Applicant 5. | 'l'hc Applicant subrnittcd that thc lcarncd trial Judgc crrcd in law and l'act rn that shc disrcgardcd thc appcllant's plcadings and cvidcncc that thc I{cspondcnt breachcd thc salc agrccmcnt cxccutcd bctwccn thc parlics lbr hcr I'ailurc to pay thc balancc of thc purchasc pricc by thc 9'r' day o['rnarch 2018 as cxprcssly agrccd in thc salc agrccmcnt and disrniss the Appcllants countcrclaim. 6. | 'l'hc Applicant submittcd that this Appcal has a likclihood ol' succcss bccausc hc did not brcach thc land salc agrccmcnt. 'l'hc Applicant submittcd llrthcr that thc l{cspondcnt lailcd to pay thc ronaining moncy. 'l'hc l{cspondcnt did not communicatc or oll'cr an cxplanation lor I'ailing to lut{ll I thc obligation. 7. | 'l'hc Applicant f urthcr subrnittcd that in Lawrcncc Musiitwa Kyazzc Vs Eunicc llusingyc, ll990l tiGSC l3 (12 Fcbruary 1990) it was hcld that an application lor stay o['cxccution pcnding appcal is dcsigncd to prescrvc the subjcct rnattcr in disputc so that thc right ol'thc appcllant who is cxcrcising 2 his/hcr undoubtcd rights ol appcal arc salbguardcd and thc appcal il' succcsslul, is not rcndcrcd nugatory. 8.1'l'hc Applicanl avcrrcd that hc had lodgcd an appcal in this court and had lodgcd both thc Noticc ol'Appcal and Mcmorandurn ol'Appcal against thc dccrcc and ordcrs in civil suit no. 42. Ol- 2020 and atlaclrcd copics markcd A and I]. 9.1 Additionally, hc subrnittcd that hc would sufl-cr incparablc loss if'no ordcr ol'slay ol- cxccution was grarrtcd pcnding thc outcotrc ol'thc appcal. 'l'hc Applicant avcrrcd that thc l{cspondcnt applicd lbr attachmcnt ol'propcrty vidc I IC'l -00-l.l)-lrMA-0321-2023. 'l'hc Applicant subnrittcd that il cxccution is madc, his tamily will suli'cr unduc hardship bccausc thc strit propcny is thcir lamily horrc. 'l'hc Applicant citcd I)r. William Shija v l'ortunatus Masha, Civil Application No. I of 2002. 'l'hc Applicant also rclicd on (liuliano Garigio v Claudio Casadio I20l3l U(;SC l, whcrc Katurecbc, CJ. rcl'crring to the Ocriod Francis'I'airo v.lumannc S. Kitila' Civil Application No 254 of 2019 120201 TZCA 1843, hcld that whcn thc Coult was laccd with alnrost a similar sccnario, it citccl with approval thc casc ol' Clura Kimoka v Srrrumbu lxv,eso 120021 T-1, 1? 255 whcrc thc Courl grantcd a Stay ol- lixcculion on thc ground tl-ral: "'l'ha /pplicunl i.s irt 1to:;st .ssiotr o/ the suil lund und rutv'ktng hccn in ltos.tas.rktn ol it. 'l hc it crrulrtion o/ htr hng rttt'ultulion o/ thc .tttil lunl would. fu iusti/iad ttnlS, uliar the ('.r,rc u'.rr litrully drlarnincLl in lhe llcspontlent .s fttrour. llut in the cwnt thc uppeul is ulktwed. il y,tsuld rusl muka nut'h .\anse lo lamporuril-y' intcrrul)l lha ,4pltlicunl ':; Irsng ytssessiott ttov onl.t'lo rcsl(rrlc it lo ltr u/itr thc sttcct'.t.t of lrcr uppaul.' 3 l0.l 'l'hc Applicant also citccl l)cusdcdit Kisisiwc v I)rotaz l]. llilauri, Civil Application No. l3 of 20I I 120031 "IZCA 16 thc courl statcd that: "'l lta ultuthnrcnt und .sulc of intnowrhla pt'opcrl.tr lrill. intvriubl.y', t'uttsc irralturuhlt in jurl. .ldnittt:dlv tnnpcn:ution torrltl be ttnlared sfutuld tha uplnul .;tttccctl hut ntonc.y.trthslilulc i.s nol lha sd tc u.\ the ph.l.ricul lutust. 'l hc li//r:rttttc hclvacn lhc plt.t':;itul ltou.se uni tha nutna.t ctlrrit'ulanl, in tha.judya'.: oltit'rion, LOtl.\tilutc.\ irrtytrublc in jury. " c xccut r on. Su brnissions lirr thc ltcslrontlcnt l2.l Counscl lirr thc Rcspondcnt submittcd that the Applicant's submissions addrcss thc appcal and not thc currcnt application. Counscl luflhcr statcd that hc is mislcading this court by submitting that his housc is thc subjcct mattcr o{- this Application, yct the application is lor a stay ol'a monctary dccrcc and not land. l3.l Counscl argucd thal thc Applicant has lailcd to provc thc grounds or considcrations that Courts takc into account bclbrc an ordcr lbr stay ol' cxccr-rtion pcnding appcal can bc grantcd. Counscl lurthcr argucd thal Rulc 6(2) o1'thc Judicaturc (Court ol'Appcal l{utcs) (l)irections) stipulatcd that thc institution ol'an appcal in thc Court ol'Appcal shall not opcratc as a stay of cxecution. l4.l I'hcrcfbrc, thc ordinary rulc is that an cxccution ol- thc dccrcc nccd not bc slaycd pcnding an appcal unlcss thc appcllant shows good causc. Counscl cited P.K Scngendo v Ilusulwa l,awrcnce and Anor, [20141 U(;CA 17 (4.lunc 2014) which citcd Kyambogo Univcrsity v Prof. lsaiah Omolo Ndicgc, Court of Appcal Civil Application No. 342 of 4 ll.l 'l'hc Applicant praycd that this Court grant thc Stay ol 2013, (unrcportcd) whcrc it was notcd that not all ordcrs or dccrccs appcalcd liorn havc to bc staycd pcnding appcal. 'l hat it is incutnbcnt upon thc Applicant to satisly thc Court that grounds cxist lbr a grant ol stay of cxccution. 'l'hcrc is no lcgal basis that oncc a party has lllcd an appcal, a slay ol'cxcculion musl lirllow as a mattcr ol'coursc. l5.l 'l'hc (iashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkundiyc l20l5l U(;SC 7 (23 April 2015) citcd in Nakato Sarah and Anor v .Iamcs llusonga and othcrs Court of Appcal Civil Application No. 303 of 2023 (unrcportcd) lays out thc grounds that rnust bc provcd in thc application lbr a stay ol' cxccution pcnding appcal. 16. I Counscl acknowlcdgcd that thc Applicant Illcd a Noticc ol'Appcal and also applicd lor a ccrtificd copy of'a rccord olprocccdings. 5 ll .l l{cgarding thc likclihood o['succcss, counscl subrnittcd that thc appcal has no mcrit and was bror.rght in bad {aith with thc intcntion to dclay thc I{cspondcnt l'rom cnjoying thc lruits of'hcr.judgmcnt. Counscl argucd that thc cvidcncc was propcrly cvaluatcd by thc court. Counscl submittcd that thc application has no chancc ol'succcss on appcal and this grourrd has not bccn provcd. Counscl rclicd on -fwongycirwc Pctcr v Muhumuza Pctcr, Misccllaneous Application No. 0681 of 2021. Itl.l On Irrcparablc darnagcs, counscl argucd that thc dccrcc sought to bc staycd docs not conccrn a housc but it is a monctary dccrcc ol [JGX. I 4,1 I 5,000/-. Counscl argucd that in this casc rnoncy bc compcnsatcd. Counscl llrthcr argucd that thc has not shown that thc Rcspondcnt is incapacitatcd lrorn paying thc said monctary dccrcc il- thcy will not sullbr a substantial loss. l9.l Counscl rclicd on thc dccision in P. K Scngcndo (supra); whcrc thc Court also rclicd on thc National Entcrpriscs Corporation v Mukisa l-oorls (Misccllancous Application No.7 of l99tl.) whcrc it was hcld that thc gcncral rulc is that thc only ground lbr a stay ol'cxccution is lbr thcm to show that oncc thc dccrctal propc(y is disposcd ol'thcrc is no likclihood o{' gctting it back should thc appcal succccd. Counscl notcd that thc Lcamcd Juslicc lurlhcr hcld that thc corrcct position of thc law is that lbr a stay ol thc cxccution pcnding an appcal to bc ordcrcd, thcy must show sulllcicnt causc. '['hc court cxplaincd that such su(licicnt causc includes whcrc thc subjcct mattcr ol'a casc is in dangcr ol'bcing dcstroycd, sold or disposcd ol' or whcrc thc dccrcc in qucstion is al'{'cctcd by a glaring llaw in thc record ol thc lowcr court as to makc thc appcal likcly to succccd. 20.1 Counscl subrnittcd that thc balancc ol'convcnicncc tilts in I'avor ol-thc [(cspondcnt bccausc thc j udgmcnt was in hcr l-avor. In thc J udgmcnt, the applicant was ordcrcd to pay a sum ol Ll(;X. 14, I 15,000/: inclusivc of intcrcst and costs ol'thc suit. 2l .l llcgarding whcthcr thc application was lllcd within a rcasonablc tiurc, counscl submittcd that thc judgmcnt was givcn on thc 29'r' day of Junc 202 l, and thc Applicant lllcd a sccond application lbr a stay ol'cxccution morc than two ycars alicr thc judgmcnt had bccn givcn. 'l'hcrc was an unrcasonablc dclay in Iiling this application. 22.1 liurthcrmorc, thc pcrusal o['thc rccord of procccdings clcarly shows that on thc 4'r'ol'July 2022, 'l'hc l{cgistrar; Ilcr Worship Natukunda comrnittcd thc Applicant to l-uzira l)rison whcrc hc procccdcd to scrvc 6 months, thcrclbrc, thc application was brought alicr exccution was partially 6 complctcd as thc judgmcnt dcbtor/ had alrcady bccn co,-mittcd ttl prison. Counscl subrnittcd that this principlc lails. 23.1 Counscl praycd that thc application should bc disnrisscd. Rejoindcr 24.1 'l'hc Applicanl rcitcratcd thc carlicr subnrissions, stating that this application sal.isllcs all thc rcquircnrcnts o1'thc grant oI a stay o['cxccution. 'l'hc Applicant additionally rclutcd thc lact that this is a dccrctal sum. llc statcd that thcrc is an application to attach his hornc.'l'hc Applicant lurthcr avcrrcd tha( he could hardly managc to survivc with his larnily bccausc hc lost all his busincss, and good rcputation both intcrnationally and nationally. Considcration of Cou rt. 25.1 'l'hc jurisdiction olthis Clourt to grant a stay ol'cxccution is sct out in I{ulc 6(2) (b) ol-thc l{ulcs olthis Court which providcs that: "2. Srrhiect to sub-rulc (l), tha institution of un altltcul shall nol opcrula lo suspend uny .\cnlc,1cc or slo! cxcc tkn hul lhe ('ourl mdy; b) in uny t'it'il procaedings, v'hara u notic'c of uppaul hus been lodgad .lblloting rula 76 of thc.sc llulas. onlar u .slu1' of cxaL'u1io,1.........rsn .such lcrms ds lha ('ourl ntur,, think.iust '. 26.1 'l'his rulc and rulc 2 (2) givc this Court, tl.rc discrction, in civil procccdings, whcre a noticc ol'appcal has bcen lodgcd lollowing rulc 76 ol thc llulcs of this Court, to ordcr a stay o['cxccution in appropriatc cascs and on tcnns that it thinks fit. 'l'his discrctionary powcr must bc cxcrciscd judiciously and cxcrciscd in a way that docs no1 prcvcnt a party lrom 7 u pursuing its appcal so that thc samc is not rcndcrcd nugatory should thc appcal ovcrturn thc trial court's dccision. 27.1 In llon. -l'hcodorc Ssckikubo & ()thcrs v 'I'hc Attorncy Ocncral and Anothcr, [20131 U(;SC 2I (101h C)ctobcr 2013, thc Suprcmc Courl laid down thc principlcs to guidc thc Courl in granting a stay ol'cxccution. It hcld that; "(l)'l ha qtplit'ution ntust a.stublish thut his uppaul hu:; u likclihood o/ .rrcc'?.r.!, or u printu.fucie tu:;c o/ hi.r right to ultpcul (2) lt nrust ulso he esluhli"'had thut thc will st(lar irrapuruble tlomogt or th thc uppaul will he rcndarcd nugutor! if o.\lut,is not grunted. (3) l.l I und 2 ubote hure not hccn estoblishcd, thc ('ourt nusl cotlsidcr rhcrt lhc hulunt'a of conteniancc lias. (1) 'l hut tha musl ul.so astuhli:;h lhut thc upplicution tt us inslitulad tithrsut dalq'. " 28.] 'l'hc purposc of thc grant ol'stay ol'cxccution is to hclp prcscruc thc status cluo and thcn havc thc rncrits ol thc casc to bc handlcd by thc lull bcnch. 'l'his Court has thc task ol-cstablishing whcthcr thc Applicant has madc oLlt thc conditions l'or thc grant o1'stay ol'cxccution. 29.1 [ havc carclully considercd thc submissions ol thc counscl ltrr thc I{cspondcnt, thc allldavit on rccord, and thc law. It is not in dispulc, that tlrcrc is a Noticc ol-Appcal in this Court. llowcvcr, thc likclihood ol'succcss o{'thc appcal, which is thc most important considcration in my vicw, must bc satisllcd. 'l'hc Court at this point is not intcrcstcd in thc nrcrits ol'thc mattcr pcr sc. According to thc Mcrnorandum ol'Appcat, it raiscs issucs on thc award ol'gcncral damagcs and brcach ol contract which warranl thc considcration ol'this Court. lt is thcrclbrc my considcrcd vicw that thc appcal is not vcxatious. 30.1 On whcthcr hc would sullcr incparablc darnagcs il thc cxccution rs not staycd, is unlbundcd. 'l-hcrc has bccn parlial satislaction by civil irnprisonmcnt of thc Applicant. owcvcr, thc dccrcc conccrns a dccrctal sum and not thc housc as thc Applicant allcgcs. llc clcarly statcs so in his allldavit in support of thc motion (paragraph 3). lt is lurthcr supportcd by anncxurc C to thc al'fldavit in support which is an application {br cxccution olthc dccrcc. Itcrn six thcrcof is a dccrctal sum ol'14,115,000/ '(l:ourtccn million, onc hundrcd and ll ltccn thousand shillings only). In rcsolving this principlc, I am pcrsuadcd by thc casc rcf'crrcd Lo by counscl tbr thc I{cspondcnt that 'I'wongycirwc l'cter v Muhunruza Petcr (supra) rvl-rcrc thc courl dcfincd what was mcant by thc appcllant sullcring irreparablc losscs that thc appcal will bc considcrcd nugatory. Il was statcd that: " ...... nug.tlory mcans of no.firt'a or a//icl; usalass; invulid. ln thi.r L'onlexl. thc te rm 'nugotorr"' hu.r lo he givn it.r ./ill nrcuning. lt doe .s not onl)' maun trorlhless. fitilt:, or inwlitl, it ulxt nrcuns trifling. lfhether or not .tn lppcal u'ill ha randarad nugutort'if u sluy is not grunled dcpencl.r rsn whclhar rtr nrtl v,ltul i.s .srtugltl to ha.ttuyatl i/ ullovrcd to happtn vill he rcvar:ihlc, or i/ it i.r tutt ravarsihle. whcthar tlumagcs *ill rau.utnubll, Lotltptn:ulc thc purtl,uggriavd. Or it i.: in tltc puhlic inle r(.\l to grunl o .\ld.t' .... " 3l.l 'l'hc lcarnccl Juclgc in this casc Iurthcr notccl that: ''...... ,sat i.s./itt't io n of a montt dccrca cktas nol ordirutrilv po:;a lhc dungcr of' rcndcring o pending uppeul tugulor.t'. Ilthara tha llc.tpondant is nol intpacunious, us lhc rene tll' of reslilulion i,s trtttilublc to thtnt in lhc cytll lhc ultltcul is allotrtd. 'l ha prcsumplion then is thut pltt'nrcnl mudc lo lhc Rasytndcnl in lhc execuliott o/ llte dccrae v'ill hc rcvarsihlc in th(' rrcnl o.f lha suc'caading u1t1tcul. l/ it i.r revar:;ihlc. ll htt.s ttrsl hccn :hown lhul tluntugt:.s trill nol reusonultll Lonlensqle thtnt, or lhot il is in tha lrultlic'inlcra.\l lo llt"qnl u.\lu.t,.... 9 32.1 ln this instant application hc has not dcrnonstratcd that hc would sullcr irrcparablc damagcs il' thc stay is not grantcd and thc appcal succccds. IIc has not also dcrnonslratcd that thc Ilcspondonl cannot colnpcnsatc hin-r whcn thc appcal is in his favor. 33.1 Sincc this is a dccrctal sum claimcd liom thc Applicant thc balancc ol- convcnicncc tilts towards thc llcspondcnt. 34.1 According to thc rccord this sccond application was rnadc within rcasonablc tinrc. 35.1 Considcring, thc law undcr rulc 6 (2), thc institution ol-an appcal docs not opcratc as a stay ol'cxccution. 'l.hc Applicant rrust adducc cvidcncc to satisly this court that thcrc is a nccd to grant a Stay ol- lixccution. Onc ol'thc rccluircmcnts Ibr thc grant ol stay of- cxecution is thc nccd to dcposit sccurity lbr duc pcrlbrmancc. (scc, l-awrcncc Musiitwa Kyazzc v Eunice llusingyc(supra))'l'hc Applicant has ncithcr dcpositcd nor indicatcd that hc would dcposit thc sccurity lbr duc pcrlbnnancc. (Scc Ilaruna Scntongo v l&M llank l-td Civil Application Nol I3 of 2023,120231U(;CA 153 (I9 May 2023) (a)'l'hc application is hcrcby dcclincd. (b)Costs shall abidc by thc outcornc ol'thc appcal. I so order. I)atcd signcd and dclivclcd at Kampala this 2024 ('. (;ASIilttAll^Kt,l ,n ts't'tCl,t or At,t,uA l. 2t $ I)ay i 10