Acam and 8 Others v Agama and Another (Miscellaneous Application 39 of 2024)
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 where applicants sought to suspend enforcement of an ex parte judgment pending determination of an application to set aside that judgment. The court held that applicants failed to establish imminent threat of execution (given that execution had already commenced with partial payment by consent) and failed to prove substantial loss that could not be compensated monetarily. The application was found to be an afterthought filed after execution proceedings had already advanced.
Outcome
Application for stay of execution dismissed; execution of the decree in Civil Suit No. 015 of 2017 to proceed
Facts
Applicants were defendants in Civil Suit No. 015 of 2017 which proceeded ex parte and judgment was entered against them on 17 August 2022. A warrant of arrest in execution was issued on 13 May 2024. The first applicant was arrested and paid UGX 3,000,000 as partial payment of the decretal sum. Applicants filed Miscellaneous Application No. 30 of 2024 to set aside the ex parte judgment, and brought this application seeking stay of execution pending determination of that setting aside application. Applicants claimed they were never properly served with summons and did not participate in the proceedings. They had previously filed Miscellaneous Application No. 103 of 2022 to set aside the ex parte order but withdrew it after judgment was delivered. Respondents contended that applicants were properly served through their lawyers M/s Isodo and Co. Advocates who filed defence and participated throughout, and that the present application was an afterthought to frustrate execution after a payment schedule had been agreed by consent.
Issues
- Whether there is a proper case for grant of an order for a stay of execution?
- What are the remedies to the applicants in the circumstances?
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs of this application awarded to the respondents to be paid by the applicants.
Rules and key headnotes
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.