Wakilii

Freddie Zagyenda v Elweru David William [2026] UGHCLD 254

High Court · 2026 Application Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of a decree pending appeal to the Court of Appeal
Decision
Application allowed; execution stayed pending appeal, conditional on the applicant depositing UGX 200 million as security within 30 days.

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 considered whether to stay execution of the decree in HCCS No. 952 of 2019 pending appeal. Applying the conditions in Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye and Kyambogo University v Ndiege, it found a pending appeal (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2026), an imminent threat of execution through the pending execution application, no unreasonable delay (the application was filed within a week of the execution application), and a risk of substantial loss through attachment and sale of the applicant's immovable property. Stay of execution being discretionary and not to be used to deny an opportunity to appeal, the court granted the stay conditional on the applicant depositing UGX 200 million as security for due performance within 30 days.

Outcome

Application allowed; execution stayed pending appeal, conditional on the applicant depositing UGX 200 million as security within 30 days.

Facts

The respondent, Elweru David William, sued the applicant, Freddie Zagyenda, in HCCS No. 952 of 2019 and succeeded, obtaining a decree with costs. Under the decree the applicant was ordered to refund UGX 107 million, pay UGX 100 million as general damages and UGX 50 million as exemplary damages, plus interest and costs (taxed at UGX 30,848,300). Judgment and decree were passed on 19 February 2025. Dissatisfied, the applicant filed a Notice of Appeal and requested a certified record of proceedings shortly after judgment; once the record was availed, he registered the appeal at the Court of Appeal as Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2026. The respondent commenced execution and taxation, lodging an application for execution (EMA 230 of 2025) on 1 December 2025, seeking attachment of the applicant's immovable property to recover the decretal sum. The applicant filed this application for stay of execution on 5 December 2025 and expressed willingness to give security for due performance.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should stay execution of the decree in HCCS No. 952 of 2019 pending the applicant's appeal.

Orders

  • Execution of the decree in HCCS No. 952 of 2019 is stayed pending disposal of Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2026 at the Court of Appeal.
  • The applicant shall deposit UGX 200 million with court as security for due performance of the decree within 30 days from the date of the ruling, failing which execution shall proceed.
  • Each party shall meet their own costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
An applicant for a stay of execution must establish a pending appeal, that substantial loss may result unless the stay is granted, that the application was made without unreasonable delay, that security has been given for due performance of the decree, and that there is a serious threat of execution such that the appeal would otherwise be rendered nugatory.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Unreasonable Delay — When Time Runs
For the purpose of assessing unreasonable delay, time runs from when the threat to execute arose rather than from the date of judgment, so that an application filed shortly after the successful party formally applies for execution is not tainted by inordinate delay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Attachment of Immovable Property
Where execution is sought by way of attachment and sale of the applicant's immovable property to recover a decretal sum, the loss the applicant would suffer if the property is attached and sold amounts to substantial loss justifying a stay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Discretionary Remedy
The requirement of security for due performance of the decree is a discretionary remedy intended to assure the successful party of recovery should the appeal fail, and it should not be applied so as to deny a party the opportunity to appeal.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (2)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Freddie Zagyenda v Elweru David William [2026] UGHCLD 254 (23 June 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.