Wakilii

Chongquing International Construction Corporation Limited (CICO) v Francis Kaahwa (Civil Application 12 of 2026)

Supreme Court · [2026] UGSC 8 · 2026 Preliminary Objection Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by Notice of Motion for an interim order staying execution, heard by a single Justice of the Supreme Court
Decision
Application for interim stay of execution dismissed on a preliminary objection; matter left to proceed in 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

Hearing a preliminary objection to an application for an interim stay of execution, a single Justice held that the application was premature and incompetent because the applicant had already filed identical applications for interim and substantive stay before the Court of Appeal, which were still pending. Rule 41(1) of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions requires that where an application may be made either to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal, it must first be made to the Court of Appeal. The Haruna Sentongo authority was distinguished because there the Court of Appeal applications had been administratively closed. The objection was upheld and the application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for interim stay of execution dismissed on a preliminary objection; matter left to proceed in the Court of Appeal

Facts

The applicant company was the unsuccessful defendant in a High Court suit (H.C.C.S No. 42 of 2020) in which judgment was entered for the respondent. Its appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 219 of 2021) was dismissed on 18 November 2025, and it filed a further appeal to the Supreme Court. The respondent obtained a garnishee order nisi freezing the applicant's bank accounts. On 31 December 2025 the parties reached a consent settlement before a mediator Judge providing for the accounts to be unfrozen against the applicant furnishing a bank guarantee for the garnisheed sum, which the applicant did not provide. The applicant had filed applications for interim and substantive stay of execution before the Court of Appeal, which remained pending, and then filed the present application for an interim stay before the Supreme Court while fresh garnishee proceedings were threatened.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for an interim stay of execution is premature and incompetent where the applicant has identical applications pending before the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether, under Rule 41(1) of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions, an application for stay of execution must first be made to the Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is upheld.
  • The application is dismissed.
  • Costs shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Requirement of a Pure Point of Law
A preliminary objection consists of a pure point of law arising from the pleadings which, if successfully argued, may dispose of the matter; it cannot be raised where any fact has to be ascertained or where the exercise of judicial discretion is sought.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Concurrent Jurisdiction — Application to be Made to Court of Appeal First
Under Rule 41(1) of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions, where an application for stay of execution may be made either to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal, it must first be made to the Court of Appeal, so as to preserve orderly administration of justice and prevent parties pursuing identical relief simultaneously before two courts.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Pending Identical Applications — Incompetent Application
An application for stay of execution before the Supreme Court is improper and incompetent where the applicant has filed identical applications that remain pending and undetermined before the Court of Appeal.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.41(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.43
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.44

Cases cited (2)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Haruna Sentongo v I & M Bank (Uganda) Limited (Civil Application No. 3 of 2025)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Chongquing International Construction Corporation Limited (CICO) v Francis Kaahwa (Civil Application 12 of 2026) [2026] UGSC 8 (10 March 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.