ABC Capital Bank Ltd v Shire Petroleum and Others [2026] UGHCLD 95

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

Holding

The applicant sought an interim order staying execution of the decree in Civil Suit No. 487 of 2012 pending determination of its substantive application for stay of execution. Before the hearing, the parties filed a consent order in the substantive application (Miscellaneous Application No. 2303 of 2024) staying execution of the decree until disposal of the applicant's appeal in the Court of Appeal. The court held that, the substantive application having been disposed of by consent, the derivative interim application had been overtaken by events and served no purpose. The application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Interim application dismissed as overtaken by events; execution stayed by consent in the substantive application pending the appeal

Facts

The applicant bank was the judgment debtor under a decree in Civil Suit No. 487 of 2012 involving Shire Petroleum, Wamala Peter and Kibwika George. It filed Miscellaneous Application No. 2303 of 2024 seeking a stay of execution of that decree pending its appeal to the Court of Appeal, and simultaneously filed the present ex parte application, Miscellaneous Application No. 2304 of 2024, for an interim order staying execution pending determination of the substantive application. The interim application was fixed for hearing on 1 April 2026. Before the hearing, the court noted that the parties had uploaded on ECCMIS a consent order arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 2303 of 2024, by which execution of the decree in Civil Suit No. 487 of 2012 was stayed until disposal of the applicant's appeal in the Court of Appeal. The substantive application having thereby been resolved, the court considered the position of the derivative interim application.

Issues

1. Whether an application for an interim order staying execution retains any purpose after the substantive application for stay of execution has been disposed of by consent.

Orders

• The Application is hereby dismissed since it has been overtaken by events.
• There is no order for costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Judicature Act Cap 16 s.37
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.22 r.23(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.22 r.89
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.43 r.4
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.52 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.52 r.3

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.