Wakilii

Erimu Company Limited and Others v KCB Uganda Limited and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 304 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 243 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal to the Court of Appeal, arising from judgment in Civil Suit 673 of 2016
Decision
Stay of execution granted for certain properties pending appeal, conditional on provision of security; one property excluded from stay as already transferred; 3rd Respondent denied audience

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 granted a conditional stay of execution for certain properties pending appeal, excluding one property already transferred to a third party. The 3rd Respondent was denied audience for failing to purge itself of contempt. The court held that the applicants demonstrated sufficient grounds for stay, including likelihood of success on appeal and threat of irreparable harm, but required security by charging the applicants' interest in alternative properties as a condition for the stay.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted for certain properties pending appeal, conditional on provision of security; one property excluded from stay as already transferred; 3rd Respondent denied audience

Facts

The applicants filed Civil Suit 673 of 2016 challenging the sale of mortgaged properties. Judgment was delivered on 18 February 2022 finding the 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents to be bona fide purchasers of most properties and ordering the applicants to hand over vacant possession of one property within three months. The applicants filed a notice of appeal and sought a stay of execution. The 1st applicant operates a carpentry and furniture business from the Ntinda premises. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent transferred one of the properties (Kyadondo Block 254 Plot 233) to a third party in contempt of an interim stay order. The court found the 3rd respondent guilty of contempt in a separate ruling (HCMA 390/2025) and ordered security and a fine, which the 3rd respondent failed to comply with.

Issues

  1. Whether execution or enforcement of the orders relating to the suit properties should be stayed pending determination of the applicants' appeal to the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether the applicants have demonstrated sufficient grounds for grant of a stay of execution, including likelihood of success on appeal, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience.
  3. Whether the 3rd Respondent, having been found in contempt of court and having failed to purge itself of contempt, should be denied audience before the court.
  4. What security, if any, should be required as a condition for granting a stay of execution.

Orders

  • Execution or enforcement of the orders relating to ONLY Kyadondo Block 216 Plots 1303, 3697 and 4087 and Kibuga Block 17 Plot 215 be stayed until the determination of the Applicant's appeal to the Court of Appeal.
  • The order of stay in respect of Kyadondo Block 254 Plot 233 is denied as it had already been transferred to a third party.
  • As security for performance of the decree and for any loss that may be suffered by the Respondents by reason of grant of this stay, the court charges the Applicants' interest in properties described as Kyadondo block 194 Plot 257 and 258 at Kungu, Busiro Block 331 Plots 174-178 at Namagoma and Kyaggwe Block 98 Plot 390 at Nsambwe.
  • The 1st Respondent is directed to deposit the titles for the security properties in court within thirty (30) days from the date of this ruling.
  • Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
  • The 3rd Respondent's evidence and submissions are struck out from the record for failure to purge itself of contempt.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Contempt of Court — Effect on Right of Audience
A party found guilty of civil contempt of court and who fails to purge themselves of the contempt by complying with court orders must be denied audience before all courts until they have purged themselves of such contempt, as allowing them to be heard would be antithetical to the rule of law and an endorsement of flagrant abuse of court process.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Positive versus Negative Orders
Only positive orders capable of execution may be stayed; negative orders such as dismissal of a suit cannot be stayed, though the enforcement of rights consequent upon such negative orders may be injuncted where parallel proceedings or an appeal are pending.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Applicable Law for High Court Decisions
The proper provision for stay of execution of High Court decisions pending appeal is Order 22 Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which applies broadly to situations where a suit is pending against a decree holder, though the considerations are similar to those under Order 43 Rule 4 which is confined to appeals to the High Court.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements for Grant
To obtain a stay of execution, an applicant must demonstrate: (a) pendency of a suit or appeal by the judgment debtor against the decree holder; (b) existence of a threat of execution; and (c) sufficient ground, including likelihood of success on appeal, irreparable harm or that the appeal will be rendered nugatory, balance of convenience, and absence of delay in filing the application.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Threat of Execution — Self-Executing Decrees
A threat of execution exists where there is no legal bar against execution and where it is probable that execution will occur; where a decree is self-executing and parties have free way to deal with properties, the requirement of imminent threat of execution is met even without overt acts of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security as Condition
Order 22 Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires provision of security as a precondition for grant of stay of execution; the quantum of security is determined in the ruling and must be paid within the timeframe imposed therein; appropriate security gives assurance that should the appeal fail, the judgment creditor will have assets against which to enforce execution.
Land & Property — Lis Pendens — Dealing with Property Subject to Appeal
The lis pendens rule prohibiting dealing in property subject to proceedings does not apply in Uganda; parties to litigation can deal with or dispose of property subject to litigation, including appeals, though a court may grant a stay with sufficient safeguards where the balance of convenience and interests of justice so require.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (45)

  • Jingo Mukasa v Rwaguma (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2015)
  • Hadkisnson v. Hadkinson [1952] 2 ALL ER 567
  • R v. Horsefery Road Magistrates Ex Parte Bennet [1994] 1 AC 42
  • National Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards v. Arnold 348 U.S. 37 (1954)
  • Paul Sentabule v Jane Musoke (Miscellaneous Application No. 965 of 2024)
  • Conform Uganda Limited v Megha Industries (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1084 of 2014)
  • FRED MATIANGI, The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interim and Co-ordination of National Government -V- MIGUNA MIGUNA & 4 OTHERS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI. 1 OF 2017 [2018] eKLR
  • Richard Odoi Adome v UEGCL & Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 1088 of 2022)
  • Mabirizi H. Kiwanuka v Attorney General (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 549 of 2022)
  • Nicholas Muriisa v Attorney General & Ors (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 35 of 2012)
  • Kalanzi Lucy v ABSA Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 1715 of 2024)
  • Kare Distributors Ltd & Anor v NCBA Bank Uganda Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2023)
  • Charles Ssemwanga v Nazziwa Aisha & Ors (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2022)
  • Exclusive Estate Limited vs. Kenya Posts and Telecommunications Corporation and Another [2005] 1 EA 53 (CA)
  • Parliamentary Commission v Francis Byamugisha & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 219 of 2016)
  • Aya Investments Limited v International Development Corporation Of South Africa (Miscellaneous Application No. 3063 of 2023)
  • Raymond M. Omboga v Austine Pyan Maranga Kisii HCCA No 15 of 2010
  • Jennifer Akinyi Osodo v Boniface Okumu Osodo & 3 others [2021] eKLR
  • Nelson Lukozi v Meera Investments Limited & Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 1970 of 2023)
  • Lawrence Musitwa v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (Miscellaneous Application No. 379 of 2003)
  • Transtrack Ltd v Damco Logistics (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 608 of 2012)
  • UMEME v Irene Nankabirwa (Miscellaneous Application No. 154 of 2021)
  • Peter Mulira v Mitchell Cotts (Miscellaneous Application No. 715 of 2009)
  • Rebecca Nabunya Iga v Senteza Kabali Bunya (Miscellaneous Application No. 948 of 2020)
  • Beeline Travel Care Limited & Anor v Finance Trust Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 296 of 2023)
  • Donati Kananura v Tribet Rujugiro (Miscellaneous Application No. 1782 of 2022)
  • Uganda Debt Network v Edward Ronald Sekyewa (Miscellaneous Application No. 1657 of 2023)
  • Malinga Noah & Ors v Akol Henry (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 203 of 2015)
  • Elizabeth Batabaire v Ngobi Siraj & Ors (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2017)
  • Formula Feeds Limited & Ors v KCB Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Hon. Hajji Mohammed Kato v Justus Kyabahwa (Miscellaneous Application No. 875 of 2023)
  • Aya Investments (U) Ltd v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa (Miscellaneous Application No. 3063 of 2023)
  • Maria Odido v Barclays Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 645 of 2008)
  • Children of Africa v Sarick Construction Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 134 of 2016)
  • Proline Soccer Academy v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Application No. 494 of 2018)
  • Kazoora v Rukuba (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1992)
  • Moses Kasozi v Muhammad Batte & Ors (High Court Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2020)
  • GAPCO Uganda Ltd v Kaweesa & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 259 of 2013)
  • Vision Empire Ltd v Uganda Communications Commission (Miscellaneous Application No. 1141 of 2020)
  • Stanbic Bank Limited v Kesacon Services Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 724 of 2023)
  • Luwa Luwa Investments v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 1336 of 2022)
  • Augustine Kasozi v Arvind Patel (Miscellaneous Application No. 503 of 2021)
  • Ropani International Limited & Anor v DFCU (Miscellaneous Application No. 1919 of 2023)
  • Ropani International Limited & Anor v DFCU Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1919 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Erimu Company Limited and Others v KCB Uganda Limited and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 304 of 2022) [2025] UGCommC 243 (18 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.