Wakilii

Acam and 8 Others v Agama and Another (Civil Miscellaneous Application 30 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 681 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 30 of 2024 (setting aside ex parte judgment) and Civil Suit No. 015 of 2017
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed as an afterthought; execution to proceed

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.

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 High Court dismissed an application for stay of execution of orders in Civil Suit No. 015 of 2017. The applicants failed to establish that there was a serious or imminent threat of execution (execution had already commenced), or that they would suffer substantial loss that could not be monetarily atoned. The court found the application was an afterthought to frustrate ongoing execution proceedings and that applicants had not adduced cogent evidence to the required standard. Costs awarded to respondents.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed as an afterthought; execution to proceed

Facts

Nine applicants sought to stay execution of orders in Civil Suit No. 015 of 2017 pending determination of their application to set aside an ex parte judgment. The applicants claimed they were never served with summons and that a defence was filed without their knowledge by politicians who then abandoned the case. In 2022, the respondents obtained an ex parte judgment. A warrant of arrest in execution was issued in May 2024 and execution commenced; the first applicant was arrested and paid UGX 3 million. The applicants filed Misc. Application No. 30 of 2024 to set aside the ex parte judgment, then filed the present application for stay of execution. The respondents contended that the applicants were properly served, that their counsel appeared throughout, that the applicants had previously filed and withdrawn an earlier application to set aside the ex parte order in 2022, and that the first applicant had consented to a payment schedule.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a proper case for grant of an order for a stay of execution?
  2. What are the remedies to the applicants in the circumstances?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondents to be paid by the applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Grounds for Stay
An application for stay of execution must establish that there is a serious or imminent threat of execution of the decree or order, and that if the stay is not granted, the appeal or application would be rendered nugatory. Where execution has already commenced and is ongoing, the object of the stay application cannot be fulfilled.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
To satisfy the ground of substantial loss, an applicant must adduce cogent evidence that the loss would be of real worth or value and cannot be monetarily atoned. Mere statements without supporting evidence are insufficient. A decree passed by a competent court should be allowed to be executed unless a strong case is made out on cogent grounds.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Abuse of Process
An application for stay of execution filed after execution has already commenced may be dismissed as an afterthought to frustrate execution and an abuse of the court process, particularly where the applicant has not met the established grounds for stay.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (7)

  • Umeme Limited v Nankabirwa (Miscellaneous Cause No. 154 of 2021)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v East African Holding Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 144 of 2014)
  • Eriab Kabigiza v Lawrence Sserwanja (1975) HCB 199
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (in liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Mabu Commodities Limited v Sophie Nakitende (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 530 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Acam and 8 Others v Agama and Another (Civil Miscellaneous Application 30 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 681 (12 July 2024)
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.