Ntwatwa v Bank of Baroda & Another (Civil Application 52 of 2024) [2025] UGCA 25 (29 January 2025)

### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

# IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CIVIL APPLICATION NO. O52 OF 2024 (Arising from Civil Appeal No. 1552 of 2023) (Arising from Civil suit No. 302 of 2019)

### Between

| Ntwatwa Godfrey Kizza | Applicant. | |-----------------------|-------------| | and | | | Bank of Baroda<br>I | Respondent. |

2 Serwadda Richard.

## RULING OF MARGARET TIBULYA, JA

- <sup>1</sup>. This is a ruling on an application for stay of execution of the decree in High Court Civil Suit No. 302 of 2019, pending the determination of the appeal. It is supported by the affidavit ofthe applicant. - 2. The grounds ofthe application are that, - a. The Respondents were the successful parties in civil suit No. 302 of 2019 in which an order for vacant possession was issued against the applicant. - b. The applicant has lodged an appeal against the whole judgement and decree in Civil Suit No. 302 of 2019 which has not been disposed of. - c. Unless this court grants a stay of execution there is a likelihood that the applicant shall be evicted from the suit land before the appeal is disposed of, and that he shall suffer substantial and irreparable loss. - d. This application was made without unreasonable delay - 3. The Respondent raises two preliminary points as follows: - i. that when this application was filed, the applicant had filed a similar application before the commercial court. Based on this, Counsel argues

that this application is incompetent and amounts to abuse of court process.

- ii. That the notice of appeal is incompetent and that this renders this application incomPetent as well. - 4. Regarding the first leg of the preliminary objection, the fact that the application at the commercial court was dismissed as is indeed conceded by counsel for the respondents defeats the argument that the only subsisting application constitutes an abuse of court process. The fact that at one time there were concurrent applications is not sufficient basis for rendering the only live application incompetent. This leg of the preliminary objection is therefore rejected. - 5. Regarding the second leg of the preliminary objection which concems the applicant's failure to abide by statutory timelines, the applicant does not deny that the judgment in the lower court was delivered on l8th October 2013. He does not deny that he filed the notice ofappeal on 28th November 2023,over month after the judgment was delivered. - 6. The power of this court to grant orders of stay of execution is provided under ruie 6 (2) of the rules of this court which provides as follows;

#### Rule 6 (2) (b)

the court may in any civil proceedings where a notice of appeal has been lodged in accordance with Rule 76 [emphasis added] of these rules, order a stay of execution, an injunction or stay of proceedings as the court considers just.

7. Rule 76 (2) requires that a notice of appeal should be filed within 14 days from the date ofjudgment.

- 8. In this case, the notice of appeal was filed over a month after delivery of the judgment. The notice is clearly incompetent. There is nothing on the record to show that the applicant bothered to have the notice ofappeal validated. This renders this application incompetent. - 9. In this result, the application is dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Dated. signed, delivered at Kampala ,n\*NaYy rtJanuary 2025.

(\ ulya Ti

Justice of Appeal.