Wakilii

Fresh Cuts(U) Ltd v Padma Nikhil Rohan Africa(PNR) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1228 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 310 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of judgment and decree pending intended appeal to the Court of Appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 High Court dismissed the application for stay of execution. The court held that although the notice of motion was not signed or sealed due to an ECCMIS system failure, the application could be considered on its merits in the interests of justice. However, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal had a likelihood of success, as it had not proved diligence in prosecuting its earlier application for leave to appear and defend. The applicant also failed to show that it would suffer irreparable loss or that the appeal would be rendered nugatory, given that the respondent was willing and able to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The respondent supplied agricultural products valued at UGX 71,252,700 to the applicant. The applicant repackaged and sold the goods but paid with cheques that bounced. The respondent obtained an ex parte judgment in Civil Suit No. 1104/2022 after the applicant's application for leave to appear and defend was dismissed for non-appearance. The applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 545/2025 to set aside the judgment, which was dismissed on 19 May 2025. The applicant then filed a notice of appeal and sought stay of execution pending the appeal. The respondent commenced garnishee proceedings to recover the decretal sum. The applicant claimed its former advocates failed to prosecute the application for leave to appear and defend, but the court found the applicant had not been diligent in following up its matter.

Issues

  1. Whether this application is properly before court?
  2. Whether the applicant has sufficient grounds for the grant of stay of execution of the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 1104/2022 and Miscellaneous Application No. 545/2025 pending the hearing and determination of an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed in its entirety.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Notice of Motion — Requirement for Signature and Seal — ECCMIS System Failure
Where a notice of motion filed via ECCMIS is not signed or sealed due to a system failure in confirming payment of court fees, the court may invoke its inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to consider the application on its merits in the interests of justice, particularly where the respondent has not been prejudiced and has filed a response.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Likelihood of Success
An applicant for stay of execution must demonstrate that the intended appeal has a real prospect of success, meaning the appeal must be realistic rather than fanciful. The court must determine whether prima facie there exist grounds of appeal that merit serious consideration, without conducting an in-depth inquiry into the merits.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Negligence of Counsel — Litigant's Diligence
Where an applicant seeks to rely on the negligence of counsel as grounds for setting aside a judgment, the applicant must demonstrate that on its part there was no inaction or negligence in following up its matter. Failure to prove diligence in prosecuting the case undermines the likelihood of success of an intended appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Monetary Decree — Irreparable Loss
In applications for stay of execution of a monetary decree, the court will not find that the applicant will suffer irreparable loss or that the appeal will be rendered nugatory unless the applicant demonstrates that the respondent has no capacity to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeds. Where the respondent is willing and able to refund, the appeal cannot be rendered nugatory.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Premature Application — Absence of Execution Proceedings
An application for stay of execution is premature where there is no evidence of any actual application for execution pending before court. The court will not grant stay on the basis of speculative or anticipated execution.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (24)

  • Sam Kiwanuka Walusimbi v Kate Nakatumba Kiwala Tamale (Miscellaneous Application No. 338 of 2024)
  • Formular Feeds Limited v KCB Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Namutebi Presty v Bumba John Livingstone (Revision Cause No. 21 of 2023)
  • Luswata Richard and Another v Asiimwe Charles (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2021)
  • Roko Construction Limited v Pramukh Steel Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 275 of 2025)
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v Abatya Agencies Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2012)
  • Gaba Beach Hotel v Cairo International Bank Ltd (Civil Application No. 34 of 2003)
  • General Bello Sarkin Yaki (RTD) vs Senator Abubaker Atiku 20151 LP ELR 25721 (SC)
  • Anguria Paul v Omerikol and Another (Civil Appeal No. 197 of 2014)
  • Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd & Ors v Mastercard Incorporated & Ors, 2022 EWCA Civ 14
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Essaji v Solanki (1968) EA 218
  • Lawrence Afusiitwa v Itobu Margaret (Miscellaneous Application No. 160 of 2020)
  • Dr. Ahmed Muhammed Kisuule v Greenland Bank (in Liquidation) (Civil Application No. 7 of 2010)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v The Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Karago Construction & Engineering Limited v Emmaus Foundation Investment (U) Limited (Civil Application No. 529 of 2025)
  • Junaco (T) Limited and 2 Others v DFCU Bank Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 145 of 2023)
  • Mabikke v Law Development Centre (Civil Application No. 14 of 2015)
  • J.W.R Kazoora v M.L.S Rukkuba (Civil Application No. 49 of 1991)
  • Kellen Muhimbise v Mohammed Saleh Ali and Another (Civil Application No. 61 of 2021)
  • Krone Uganda Limited v Kerilee Investment Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 63 of 2020)
  • Kinyira Francis and Others v Mike Mawejje (Miscellaneous Application No. 3524 of 2023)
  • The Official Receiver (suing as the interim liquidator of Continental Bank of Kenya (in liquidation) vs Mugo Mukunya and 3 Others [2001] KECA 78 (KLR)
  • Kawesa and Others v Commissioner Land Registration and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 3342 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Fresh Cuts(U) Ltd v Padma Nikhil Rohan Africa(PNR) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1228 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 310 (21 May 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.