Wakilii

Universal Multipurpose Enterprises v Xue Wen Jun (Civil Application No. 297 of 2025)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 226 · 2025 Application Granted (Conditional Stay) ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution pending appeal and to set aside a Garnishee Nisi
Decision
Conditional stay of execution granted pending appeal; garnishee on two DTB accounts to be lifted upon deposit of two certificates of title with the Registrar, held as security for the decretal sum

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Sitting as a single Justice, the court granted a conditional stay of execution pending appeal. It held that a notice of appeal had been filed and that objections to its competency were matters for the appellate court, not bars to a stay. Applying the Ssekikubo principles, the court found the freezing of all the applicant's accounts would cause irreparable business paralysis, while the respondent, a foreign national with no known local assets, posed a real risk of non-recovery. Balancing convenience, it stayed execution on condition that two certificates of title be deposited as security for the full decretal sum, with the garnishee on two DTB accounts lifted only on that deposit. Costs in the cause.

Facts

The respondent, a Chinese investor in Uganda, paid the applicant UGX 362,000,000 as the purchase price for a condominium unit for her accommodation. The applicant received the money but failed to deliver possession of the unit. The respondent sued (Civil Suit No. 262 of 2022); the trial judge entered judgment on admission ordering a refund with damages, bringing the total decretal sum to UGX 363,235,000. The respondent taxed her bill of costs and obtained a Garnishee Nisi on 12 June 2025 freezing the applicant's eight business accounts, served on the banks on 13 June 2025. The applicant, a condominium developer employing over 200 workers, contended that the freeze had paralysed its operations and ongoing projects. It filed a notice of appeal and sought a stay, offering two certificates of title for condominium units valued over UGX 600,000,000 as security. The respondent disputed the competency and timeliness of the notice of appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had filed a valid notice of appeal capable of grounding a stay of execution, and whether objections to its competency precluded a stay.
  2. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for a stay of execution pending appeal.
  3. Where the balance of convenience lay, and whether a conditional stay should be granted.

Orders

  • Application succeeds; an Order for Stay of Execution of the decree in Civil Suit No. 262 of 2022 is granted pending the hearing and final determination of the appeal, subject to conditions.
  • The Garnishee Orders on DTB UGX Account No. 0033255003 (UGX 99,055,180) and DTB USD Account No. 0033255004 (USD 138,476) shall be lifted only upon the applicant producing to the Registrar the two certificates of title for Unit 83 Block 246 Plot 1717 and Unit 66 Block 245 Plot 1717.
  • The two certificates of title, of estimated value over UGX 600,000,000, shall continue to be held as security for the full decretal sum of UGX 363,235,000.
  • The costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution Pending Appeal — Governing Conditions
An applicant for a stay of execution pending appeal must establish that the appeal has a likelihood of success or a prima facie right to appeal, that irreparable damage will result or the appeal will be rendered nugatory if a stay is refused, and where these are not established the court considers where the balance of convenience lies; the application must also be made without unreasonable delay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Competency of Notice of Appeal
Where a notice of appeal has been filed, objections to its competency are matters for determination by the appellate court during the appeal and do not in themselves preclude the grant of a stay of execution if adequate security is provided and the other conditions are met.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Money Decrees and Security
Where large sums of money are involved, the policy of the law is not against a stay of execution, but a stay should be granted on condition that the judgment-debtor pays the sum into court or furnishes security approved by the court, so as to protect a defeated party who succeeds on appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Risk of Dissipation by a Foreign Party
Where the successful party is unlikely to be able to repay the decretal sum if the appeal succeeds, such as a foreign national with no known assets within the jurisdiction, a conditional stay should be granted to preserve the substratum of the appeal.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Judicature Act Cap 16 s.10
  • Judicature Act Cap 16 s.11
  • Judicature Act Cap 16 s.12
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 rule 2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 rule 6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 rule 43(1)(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 rule 76
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 rule 83(3)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 22 r.8(2)(d)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations r.9
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28(1)

Cases cited (10)

  • MAKULA INTERNATIONAL LTD v HIS EMINENCE CARDINAL NSUBUGA & ANOR HCB 11
  • Batambuze Majid v Joyce Ataro (Civil Application No. 0572 of 2024)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kato v Nalwoga (Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2011)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Attorney General v East African Law Society & Anor (Application No. 1 of 2013)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd (supra)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v Attorney General and Another [2013] UGSC 21
  • Lubego Moses v Nassimbwa (Civil Application No. 722 of 2024)
  • Alex Adu v The Commissioner-General & Ghana Revenue Authority [2014] 78 GMJ 130
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.