Wakilii

Allan Makula and Others v I-Engineering Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 0191 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 57 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of consent decree pending determination of bankruptcy petition
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed; applicant advised to seek intermittent relief from bankruptcy petition or raise sufficient cause upon receipt of execution notice

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 a consent decree pending determination of a bankruptcy petition. The court held that the applicant adopted the wrong procedure by seeking a stay before exhausting remedies available upon issuance of a notice to show cause why execution should not issue. The proper procedure was to seek an intermittent stay arising from the bankruptcy petition itself, or to raise sufficient cause when responding to the execution notice. Until an order of execution issues, the applicant cannot invoke the court's inherent powers and is not properly before court.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed; applicant advised to seek intermittent relief from bankruptcy petition or raise sufficient cause upon receipt of execution notice

Facts

The applicants executed a consent decree on 14 February 2022, endorsed by the High Court on 9 March 2022, wherein the 1st applicant agreed to bear liability for UGX 1,564,037,608 owed to the respondent, with claims against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th applicants withdrawn. The 1st applicant paid UGX 80,000,000 but was unable to pay the outstanding balance. He filed a bankruptcy petition (HCT-00-CV-IP-0006-2024) which remained pending. The respondent commenced execution proceedings and issued a notice to show cause why execution should not issue. The 1st applicant then brought this application seeking a stay of execution pending determination of his bankruptcy petition, citing inability to pay despite selling his belongings.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has disclosed any grounds to warrant a stay of execution.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Proper Procedure — Application Before Execution Order Issues
An application for stay of execution is premature and the applicant is not properly before court if brought before an order of execution has issued, where there is no pending appeal, application to set aside, review or revision, and before the applicant has exhausted the procedure of responding to a notice to show cause why execution should not issue.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Bankruptcy Petition — Intermittent Relief
Where a judgment debtor has filed a bankruptcy petition, the proper procedure to obtain a stay of execution is to seek an intermittent stay as relief arising from the bankruptcy petition itself, rather than filing a separate application for stay in the execution proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers of Court — Invocation — Conditions Precedent
The court's inherent powers under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act can only be invoked if the applicant has sufficient cause and is properly before court, which requires that an order of execution has issued or that the applicant was not given an opportunity to be heard.
Civil Procedure — Execution — Notice to Show Cause — Sufficient Cause
Upon receipt of a notice to show cause why execution should not issue, a judgment debtor may appear before the presiding officer and raise sufficient cause for non-compliance, which may include being poverty-stricken and unable to pay, and the presiding officer may advise the debtor to apply for bankruptcy under Section 40(3) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (6)

  • KCB Bank v Gichohi Ngari and 2 Others (Court of Appeal No. 0323 of 2023)
  • National Union of Clerical Commercial Professionals and Technical Employees v The National Insurance Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Isam Fathalrahman salim and anor Vs Ms Gulf Commidities Ltd and 4 ors HMA 598 of 2012
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businge (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Andrew Kisawuzi Vs Dan Oundo Malingu HCMA No. 467 of 2013
  • In the matter of a Petition for a receiving order by Maria K Mutesi Bankruptcy Petition No.5 of 2011

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Allan Makula and Others v I-Engineering Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 0191 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCD 57 (13 May 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.