Kasito Robert v Service & Computer Industries (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 478 of 2025)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 77 · 2026 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application for a stay of execution pending an intended reference to the East African Court of Justice, arising from Civil Appeal No. 705 of 2023

Decision

Application for stay of execution dismissed for want of merit

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

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

The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for a stay of execution. A stay under Rule 6(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules requires a notice of appeal lodged under Rule 76; the applicant's intended reference to the East African Court of Justice, filed after exhausting his right of appeal, was not such a notice of appeal. The applicant also failed to show any likelihood of success in the intended reference, irreparable harm incapable of compensation by damages, or an imminent threat of execution supported by documentary evidence. The application was accordingly dismissed for want of merit, with no order as to costs because the respondent filed no submissions.

Facts

The applicant lodged a complaint with the Labour Office alleging unfair termination of employment by the respondent. The Labour Office found that due process had not been followed and awarded him Shs. 2,800,000. On the respondent's appeal, the Industrial Court held that the applicant was not an employee of the respondent and set aside the Labour Office's award. The applicant's subsequent Civil Appeal No. 705 of 2023 to the Court of Appeal was unsuccessful, the court holding it incompetent because the grounds raised were not points of law. Having exhausted his right of appeal, the applicant filed a reference to the East African Court of Justice, First Instance Division, Reference No. 42 of 2025, and brought this application for a stay of execution, contending the reference would be rendered nugatory if a stay were refused and that he had deposited security for costs. The respondent filed no affidavit in reply and no submissions.

Issues

Whether the applicant satisfied the legal requirements for a stay of execution.
What remedies, if any, are available to the parties.

Orders

The application for stay of execution is hereby dismissed for want of merit.
No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirement of a Lodged Notice of Appeal

An order for stay of execution under Rule 6(2)(b) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions may be made only where a notice of appeal has been lodged in accordance with Rule 76; a reference filed in another forum after the right of appeal has been exhausted is not a notice of appeal and cannot ground a stay.

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant

A stay of execution is a discretionary remedy granted only where the applicant demonstrates a lodged notice of appeal, a prima facie case with a high likelihood of success, irreparable loss if the stay is refused, the absence of undue delay, and willingness to provide security for costs.

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Irreparable Harm and Imminent Execution

Where any inconvenience to the applicant can be adequately remedied by an award of damages, and where the applicant adduces no documentary evidence of an imminent or pending execution, there is no basis for granting a stay of execution.

Legislation cited (7)

Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.2(2)
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.6(2)(b)
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.42
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.43
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.46
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.47
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.76

Cases cited (3)

National Enterprise Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 7 of 1998)
Hon Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v Attorney General
Dr. Ahmed Kisule v Greenland Bank in Liquidation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2010)

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.