Wakilii

Ali Hussein and Another v Mustafa Semih Gecgil (Miscellaneous Application No. 266 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 665 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal to the Court of Appeal
Decision
Stay of execution granted pending determination of appeal before the Court of Appeal

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 granted the application for stay of execution pending appeal. The court found that the applicants had lodged a notice of appeal within the statutory period, that there was an imminent threat of execution as evidenced by a notice to show cause, and that the applicants would suffer substantial loss if required to pay UGX 1,500,000,000 in general damages while the appeal challenging that award was pending. The court held that the appeal raised serious questions requiring guidance from the Court of Appeal on the assessment of general damages. No security for due performance was ordered given the respondent's failure to oppose the application.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted pending determination of appeal before the Court of Appeal

Facts

The applicants were sued by the respondent for breach of contract in Civil Suit No. 023 of 2018. Judgment was entered in favour of the respondent, awarding general damages of UGX 1,500,000,000. The applicants filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2021) on 18 December 2020, one day after judgment was delivered. The respondent subsequently applied for execution of the decree and a notice to show cause why execution should not issue was served on the applicants. The applicants then filed this application for stay of execution pending the determination of their appeal. The respondent did not file any affidavit in reply or appear to oppose the application.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants have lodged a notice of appeal.
  2. Whether there is serious or imminent threat of execution of the decree or order and if the application is not granted, the appeal would be rendered nugatory.
  3. Whether the applicants would suffer substantial loss if stay of execution is not granted.
  4. Whether the application has been made without unreasonable delay.
  5. Whether the appeal has a high likelihood of success.
  6. Whether security for due performance of the decree should be required.

Orders

  • An order for stay of execution doth issue restraining the Respondent, his agents and anyone claiming under him from executing the orders emanating from judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 23 of 2018 pending the final determination of Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2021 before the Court of Appeal.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
For a court to grant a stay of execution pending appeal, the applicant must satisfy the following conditions: (a) that a notice of appeal has been lodged; (b) that there is serious or imminent threat of execution and if the application is not granted the appeal would be rendered nugatory; (c) that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the stay is granted; (d) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; (e) that the appeal has a high likelihood of success; and (f) that security has been given by the applicant for due performance of the decree as may ultimately be binding upon him or her.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
Substantial loss refers to any loss great or small of real worth or value as distinguished from loss that is merely nominal. Where an applicant would be required to pay a substantial sum in damages while an appeal challenging that award is pending, this constitutes substantial loss that may warrant a stay of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Purpose and Rationale
An application for stay of execution pending appeal is designed to preserve the subject matter in dispute so that the rights of the appellant who is exercising his undoubted right of appeal are safeguarded and the appeal, if successful, is not rendered nugatory. The discretionary relief balances the competing rights of the appellant to a meaningful appeal and the decree holder to the benefits of the decree.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Uncontested Applications
In application proceedings where evidence is supplied by affidavit and there is no opposing affidavit, the application stands unchallenged. Where a respondent fails to file an affidavit in reply despite being served, the court may accept the applicant's case as having substance.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success
In determining whether to grant a stay of execution, it is not necessary for the court to pre-empt consideration of matters necessary to decide whether the appeal would succeed, nor is it incumbent on the applicants to demonstrate the possibility of success. The applicants must prove that the appeal is not frivolous and vexatious and that it raises serious questions of law and fact.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance
Where a respondent does not oppose an application for stay of execution and therefore does not make a proper case for payment of security for due performance of the decree, the court may decline to order such security given the circumstances of the case.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (13)

  • Hon. Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Dr. Ahmed Muhammed Kasule v Greenland Bank in Receivership (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 07 of 2010)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd and 2 Others v International Credit Bank (In liquidation) (2004) EA 331
  • Orute Aloysius and 4 Others v Alupo Esther (Civil Application No. 960 of 2023)
  • Absalom Dova, Vs. Tarbo Transporters [2013] eKLR
  • Wilson Mukiibi v James Semusambwa (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9 of 2003)
  • Makerere University v Zescom Technologies Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 432 of 2013)
  • Makerere University Vs. St. Mark Education Institute Ltd & Ors [1994] KALR 681
  • Samwiri Masa vs Rose Achieng [1978] HCB 297
  • Wilson V. Church (1879) volume 12Ch d 454
  • Global Capital Save 2004 Ltd and Another v Alice Okiror and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 485 of 2012)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • The Annot Lyle (1886) II PD 114 at 116

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ali Hussein and Another v Mustafa Semih Gecgil (Miscellaneous Application No. 266 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 665 (8 August 2025)
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.