Dr.Ahmed Muhammed Kisuule v Greenland Bank (in liquidation) (Civil Application 7 of 2010)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed an application for stay of execution pending appeal. An applicant must show, beyond lodging a notice of appeal under rule 72, substantial or irreparable loss, no unreasonable delay, security for due performance, and a likelihood of success. Here the applicant's pending appeal had no likelihood of success because the appeal against the High Court's dismissal of his review application had reached the Court of Appeal without the leave mandatorily required by Order 44 rule 2 CPR; a dismissal of a review falls under that rule, not Order 44 rule 1. The applicant also failed to depose to any irreparable loss. Having shown no sufficient cause, the application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs

Facts

In November 1995 the applicant and another obtained a UGX 30 million loan from the respondent bank at 25% interest, secured on the applicant's Makerere Kikoni properties. After repayment difficulties the applicant alone undertook to repay under a new agreement. On default, the respondent sold the secured properties and sued for the outstanding balance. The High Court gave judgment for the respondent in 2005. The applicant's application to review that judgment was dismissed with costs in 2008. His appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2009) was dismissed, and he then filed Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2010 in the Supreme Court. Pending that appeal, he applied to stay execution of the Court of Appeal decree, asserting his appeal would otherwise be rendered nugatory. The respondent opposed, contending the appeal lacked any likelihood of success because the underlying appeal had been brought without the leave required to appeal against the dismissal of a review application.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for a stay of execution pending the disposal of his appeal in the Supreme Court.
2. Whether the applicant's pending appeal had a likelihood of success, given that the underlying appeal to the Court of Appeal was brought without the leave required under Order 44 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
3. Whether the applicant established that he would suffer irreparable loss if a stay of execution was not granted.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (18)

• Rules of the Supreme Court r.6(2)(b)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.41(1)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.43
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.45
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.47
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.72
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.101(3)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 44 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 44 r.2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 44 r.4
• Civil Procedure Rules Order XLVI r.3(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order XLVI r.3(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 26 r.1
• Civil Procedure Act s.26
• Civil Procedure Act s.27
• Civil Procedure Act s.76
• Constitution art.126(2)(e)
• Constitution art.133(1)

Cases cited (2)

• Idah Iterura v Joyce Maguta (Civil Application No. 2 of 2006)
• Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)

Cases citing this judgment (21)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Bamanya Andrew Mulindwa v Namuleme Josephine and Another (Miscellaneous Application 195 of 2024)
• Andrew Byakutaga and Another v M S Kabega, Bogezi & Bukenya Advocates (Miscellaneous Application No. 0356 of 2025)
• Muhindo v Kuka (Uganda) Limited (HCT-01-LD-MA-0086-2024)
• Kabuga Ranchers v Kamwenge Ditsrict Local Government (HCT-01-LD-MA 103 of 2024)
• Tibamwenda and 2 Others v Kachurokabo (Miscellaneous Application 41 of 2024)
• Tigambirwa v Kazooba (HCT-01-CV-MA 68 of 2024)
• Katalihwa v Kisoke and Another (Miscellaneous Application 45 of 2024)
• Nyakabwa and Another v Kalimbi and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 26 of 2024)
• Kiiza v Bazalirwaki (Miscellaneous Application 56 of 2024)
• Barozi and Another v Winyi (HCT-01-CV-MA 27 of 2003)
• Mugisa Florence Kyaligonza & 2 Ors v Jane Rose Tusiime (Administrator of the (Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2024)
• Birihariiwe v Bright Amooti (Miscellaneous Application 107 of 2023)
• Umeme Limited v Kadecember (Miscellaneous Application 30 of 2021)
• Fortportal city Council v Mali and 14 Others (HCT-01-CV-MA 113 of 2023)
• Hon. Hajji Mohammed Kato Katoto v Justus Kyabahwa (Civil Application No. 1168 of 2023)
• Kabagambe and 2 Others v Kekibuga (Miscellaneous Application 51 of 2023)
• Muzoora v Kabanyomozi (HCT-01-CV-MA 24 of 2023)
• Wandera v Baguma (HCT-01-CV-CS 36 of 2021)
• Kaganda v Nyamutale and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 46 of 2021)
• The Registered trustees of Soroti Catholic Diocese v Echodu and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 32 of 2022)
• Kato Lubwama v Buwembo (Election Petition Application No. 02 of 2017)

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