Wakilii

CFAO Mobility Uganda Limited v Edga Kassami (Miscellaneous Application No. 1784 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 173 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside order of stay of execution granted pending appeal
Decision
Stay of execution order set aside; applicant may now execute the judgment in Civil Suit No. 481/2013

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 court set aside an order of stay of execution granted in 2019 where the respondent failed to prosecute the intended appeal with diligence. After obtaining the stay order, the respondent made no follow-up on the record of proceedings for almost six years (February 2020 to October 2025), only writing to the Registrar after the present application was filed. The court held that a litigant granted stay of execution is under an obligation to pursue pending proceedings with utmost diligence, and where the litigant neglects those proceedings, the court may vacate the order.

Outcome

Stay of execution order set aside; applicant may now execute the judgment in Civil Suit No. 481/2013

Facts

Judgment was entered against the applicant (now CFAO Mobility Uganda Limited) in Civil Suit No. 481/2013 on 7 February 2018 for payment of USD 28,000 with interest and UGX 2,000,000 with interest, plus costs. The respondent filed a notice of appeal on 9 February 2018 and requested the typed record of proceedings. On 27 March 2019, the respondent was granted an order of stay of execution pending appeal and deposited UGX 26,000,000 as security. The respondent made several follow-ups for the record of proceedings, the last being on 7 February 2020. No further action was taken until 2 October 2025, after the present application was filed. The applicant sought to set aside the stay order on grounds that the respondent had failed to prosecute the appeal with diligence over a period exceeding five years.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises sufficient grounds to warrant the setting aside of the order of stay of execution in Civil Suit No. 481/2013.

Orders

  • The order of stay of execution in Civil Suit No. 481/2013 is hereby set aside.
  • The costs of this application shall be borne by the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Duty of Diligence — Setting Aside Stay Order
Where a court grants a litigant a stay of execution pending appeal, that litigant is under an obligation to pursue the pending proceedings with utmost diligence. Where the litigant neglects those proceedings within the time prescribed or within a reasonable period, the litigant does not deserve the continual protection of the court and the trial court may vacate, revoke, cancel or discharge the order.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Purpose — Preservation of Subject Matter
An order of stay of execution pending appeal is granted for the limited purpose of preserving the subject matter in dispute so as to protect the appellant's right of appeal and to ensure that the appeal, if successful, is not rendered nugatory. The order is not an end in itself but a temporary relief.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers of Court — Section 98 Civil Procedure Act and Section 37 Judicature Act
Section 37 of the Judicature Act and section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act vest the High Court with wide discretionary and inherent powers to grant remedies as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of court. These powers are exercised judiciously with great caution, depending on the circumstances of each case and for sufficient cause.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Inactivity — Six-Year Delay
A six-year period of inactivity in following up on the preparation of the record of proceedings, with the sole attempt to write to the Registrar occurring only after an application to set aside the stay order had been filed, demonstrates a lack of tenacity in prosecuting the intended appeal and undermines the credibility of a claim of diligence.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (6)

  • Twaha Galiwango v Royal Transit Limited & Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1232 of 2024)
  • Atoo Grace v Onen Anthony and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 044 of 2021)
  • Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership & Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Proprietary Limited vs Commissioner Land Registration & 7 Others
  • Rosette Kizito v Administrator General & Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9 of 1986)
  • Alcon International Ltd v Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co Advocates (Miscellaneous Application No. 438 of 1995)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

CFAO Mobility Uganda Limited v Edga Kassami (Miscellaneous Application No. 1784 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 173 (27 April 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.