Wakilii

Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd v Wilfred Bugingo (Civil Application No. 388 of 2025)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 78 · 2026 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending an application to reinstate an appeal dismissed for non-appearance.
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed as overtaken by events, execution of the decree having already been completed.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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. It held that an application to reinstate an appeal dismissed for non-appearance is not a pending appeal or notice of appeal within Rule 6(2)(b) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules), so no stay could rest on it. The Court further held that a stay cannot issue where execution has already been completed; here the decretal sum of Shs. 100,000,000 had already been recovered through lawful execution. The applicant had not shown irreparable harm beyond the ordinary consequences of execution, nor any prima facie prospect of success. The application was overtaken by events and dismissed with costs.

Facts

The applicant bank filed Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2017 challenging High Court orders in Miscellaneous Application No. 1242 of 2016 directing it to pay exemplary damages of Shs. 100,000,000 to the respondent. The appeal was dismissed on 1 July 2025 for non-appearance of the applicant. The applicant then filed Miscellaneous Application No. 375 of 2025 seeking reinstatement of the appeal, and brought the present application for a stay of execution to restrain the respondent from executing the decree pending determination of the reinstatement application. The applicant contended it would suffer irreparable loss if compelled to pay the substantial sum. The respondent contended that the decretal sum had already been recovered pursuant to execution proceedings, so there was no status quo to preserve and the application was overtaken by events.

Issues

  1. Whether an application to reinstate an appeal dismissed for non-appearance amounts to a pending appeal or notice of appeal for the purpose of granting a stay of execution under Rule 6(2)(b).
  2. Whether a stay of execution can be granted where execution of the decree has already been completed.
  3. Whether the applicant demonstrated the conditions for the grant of a stay of execution.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Whether reinstatement application is a pending appeal under Rule 6(2)(b)
An application to reinstate an appeal that has been dismissed for non-appearance does not amount to a pending appeal or a lodged notice of appeal within the meaning of Rule 6(2)(b) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules), and therefore cannot found a stay of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Effect of completed execution
A stay of execution cannot be granted where execution of the decree has already been completed; a court will not issue a stay in respect of a subject matter that has already been removed or no longer exists.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for grant
To obtain a stay of execution an applicant must demonstrate a pending appeal or lodged notice of appeal, a likelihood of success amounting to a prima facie case, a risk of substantial loss or irreparable harm, that the balance of convenience favours the grant, and that the application was lodged without undue delay.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Judicature Act s.12
  • 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.76
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.100

Cases cited (9)

  • Katsitsi David v Sam Katabazi & Others (Civil Appeal No. 121 of 2023)
  • Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 40 of 2020)
  • Coil Limited & Another v Attorney General and I&M Bank (U) Limited (Civil Application No. 195 of 2025)
  • Kiyaga Edward v Christy Mary Namakula Kapere (Civil Appeal No. 1293 of 2023)
  • Nahurira Haam alias Kashaba & Others v Lutanga Mike (Civil Application No. 1021 of 2023)
  • Dr. Ahmed Muhammad Kisule v Greenland Bank (in Liquidation) (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 7 of 2009)
  • Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd v Wilfred Bugingo (Civil Application No. 405 of 2025)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v Attorney General
  • National Enterprises Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 1998)
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.