Wakilii

Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited v Nabaweesi Brenda [2026] UGCOMMC 369

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal from a High Court judgment.
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent.

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 applicant bank sought a stay of execution pending its appeal against a judgment awarding the respondent special and general damages, interest and costs for breach of a tenancy agreement. The court held that the applicant failed to satisfy the essential requirements for a stay. Having voluntarily paid the special damages, it had not shown a likelihood of success on appeal against the whole decision, nor demonstrated substantial or irreparable loss beyond ordinary litigation loss. Satisfaction of a money decree does not render an appeal nugatory where the respondent is not shown to be impecunious, restitution being available. Although the application was brought without unreasonable delay, that alone was insufficient. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Facts

The respondent, Nabaweesi Brenda, sued the applicant bank in Civil Suit No. 665/2022 for breach of a tenancy agreement, claiming sums for repairs, lost rent, general damages and costs. On 12 March 2025 the court found the bank had breached the agreement and awarded the respondent Ugx 49,730,000 in special damages (with 18% interest per annum from the date of filing) and Ugx 60,000,000 in general damages (with 8% interest per annum from judgment), plus costs. On 26 March 2025 the bank filed a notice of appeal against the whole decision and requested the record of proceedings. On 24 June 2025 the bank partially satisfied the decree by paying the special damages, stating it would continue its appeal against the general damages, interest and costs. The respondent acknowledged the part payment and demanded the balance, then commenced execution proceedings (Miscellaneous Application No. 0417/2025). The bank applied for a stay of execution pending appeal, offering to furnish security for due performance of the decree.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises sufficient grounds for an order of stay of execution pending appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant under Order 43 rule 4
An applicant for a stay of execution must show substantial loss unless the order is made, that the application was made without unreasonable delay, and readiness to give security for due performance of the decree; these are supplemented by an imminent threat of execution, the risk of the appeal being rendered nugatory, a non-frivolous appeal with a likelihood of success, and that refusal would inflict greater hardship than it would avoid.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success — Effect of Partial Satisfaction of the Decree
Where an applicant voluntarily satisfies part of a decree, it undermines its ability to demonstrate a likelihood of success on an appeal directed against the whole decision, and a stay will not be granted where such likelihood is not sufficiently demonstrated.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Standard of Proof
Substantial loss cannot be quantified by a mathematical formula and must be over and above the ordinary loss resulting from litigation; mere apprehension of loss or a general assertion of irreparable harm, unsupported by cogent evidence, does not satisfy the requirement.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Appeal Rendered Nugatory — Money Decrees and Restitution
Satisfaction of a money decree does not ordinarily render an appeal nugatory where the respondent is not shown to be impecunious, because the remedy of restitution is available to the applicant if the appeal succeeds; the applicant bears the burden of proving the respondent could not repay.
Civil Procedure — Written Submissions — Consequences of Late Filing
The filing of written submissions within the schedule set by the court is a legal requirement and not a matter of choice; where a party files out of time without justification and thereby deprives the opposing party of the opportunity to reply, the court may disregard the late submissions.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (7)

  • Susan Theophili Mbilinyi v Ivanune Jeru Mbilinyi (Miscellaneous Civil Revision No. 3 of 2023)
  • Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Formula Feeds Limited and 3 Others v KCB Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Muhorro Town Council v Rutalihamu Jacob (Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2022)
  • Junaco (T) Limited and 2 Others v DFCU Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 27 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited v Nabaweesi Brenda [2026] UGCOMMC 369 (3 August 2026)
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.