Wakilii

Cinam Investments Limited v Tirupati Development (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application no. 783 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 179 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal from High Court judgment in HCCS No. 0114 of 2022
Decision
Application dismissed; respondent to continue management of the suit property pending 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 court held that declaratory orders declaring the applicant's appointment as property manager illegal, null and void are self-executing and take effect immediately upon pronouncement. The applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss or that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay of execution was not granted. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent who owned 61 of 298 units in the property. Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed; respondent to continue management of the suit property pending appeal

Facts

The applicant was appointed property manager of Tirupati Mazima Mall. In HCCS No. 0114 of 2022, the High Court declared the applicant's appointment illegal, null and void, and issued a permanent injunction restraining the applicant from interfering with the property. The respondent, who owned 61 of 298 units in the mall, took over management on 31 March 2025 by notifying tenants, landlords, and utility providers. The applicant filed a notice of appeal and sought stay of execution, alleging the respondent was executing the decree without a formal application and warrant. The respondent contended the declaratory orders were self-executing and that the mall required urgent intervention due to structural and safety concerns.

Issues

  1. Whether the order in Civil Suit No. 0114 of 2022 relating to management of the suit property is a declaratory order and is by its nature self-executing.
  2. Whether the Applicant has demonstrated sufficient grounds for grant of an order of stay of execution.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Self-Executing Orders — Declaratory Orders
Declaratory orders are self-executing and take effect immediately upon pronouncement by the court. No warrant of execution can be issued to enforce them and they are not capable of being stayed in the true sense of execution under Order 22 Rules 7 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Burden of Proof
An applicant seeking stay of execution must go beyond vague and generalised assertions of substantial loss and must demonstrate to the court the specific nature of the loss that would be suffered if the application is denied. The loss must be substantial or material and one that cannot be adequately compensated in damages.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Balance of Convenience — Preservation of Status Quo
In determining where the balance of convenience lies, the court must weigh the loss or risk of exposure for the applicant if the order is denied against the damage which could be suffered if it is granted. The status quo to be preserved is the position as it exists after the declaratory order has taken effect, not the position before the order was made.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Declaratory Orders — Contempt of Court
Where a court has declared an appointment illegal, null and void, and issued a permanent injunction restraining interference with property, the affected party must immediately cease the declared illegal activities. To continue in management of the property beyond the date of delivery of judgment amounts to contempt of court.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (10)

  • Kyambogo University v Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 2048 of 2013)
  • Musaazi v Nakatoligo Robina and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 33 of 2025)
  • SBI International Holding AG (U) Ltd v COF International Company (Civil Appeal No. 183 of 2018)
  • Namanya Nathan v Lameak Nkenga Nseribetya (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 228 of 2024)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v The Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) [2004] EA 331
  • DFCU Bank Limited v Crane Management Services Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 236 of 2025)
  • Pan African Insurance Company (U) Ltd v International Air Transport Association (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 08 of 2000)
  • Giella v Cassman Brown and Co [1973] EA 358
  • Jayndrakumar De Vechand Devani v Haridas Vallabhdas Bhadresa & Anor (Court of Appeal of East Africa Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1971)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Cinam_Investments_Limited_v_Tirupati_Development_(U)_Ltd_(Miscellaneous_Application_no._783_of_2025)_[2025]_UGHCLD_179_(21_July_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.