Wakilii

Great Lakes Coffee Company Ltd and Others v KCB Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 59 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 194 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of judgment pending appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed

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

Application for stay of execution dismissed. Court held that applicants failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules. No notice of appeal had been filed, only leave to appeal granted. Applicants failed to demonstrate that the appeal had a likelihood of success, that substantial loss would result, or that there was an imminent threat of execution. No security for due performance of the decree was furnished.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The respondent bank obtained judgment against the applicants in Civil Suit No. 261 of 2024 for recovery of USD 1,104,419 arising from a loan facility. The applicants' application for leave to appear and defend was dismissed and judgment entered on 3 September 2025. On 13 December 2025, the court granted the applicants leave to appeal. On 13 January 2026, the applicants filed this application for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, citing a notice to show cause issued in execution proceedings. The respondent opposed, arguing the application lacked merit and that the applicants had not furnished security for due performance of the decree.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution pending appeal should be allowed.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Mandatory Requirements — Filing of Notice of Appeal
Before a court considers whether to grant a stay of execution pending appeal, it must first be satisfied that the applicant has duly lodged a notice of appeal complying with all procedural requirements. Commencing the appellate process by filing an application for leave to appeal does not amount to filing an appeal. In the absence of a notice of appeal or memorandum of appeal, there is no legally cognisable appeal before the court.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success — Burden of Proof
An applicant for stay of execution must place before the court material that goes beyond a mere statement that the appeal has a likelihood of success. The applicant ought to avail to the court a draft memorandum of appeal indicating the proposed grounds of appeal, or a copy of the judgment being appealed against. Merely stating that one is aggrieved is insufficient.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Nugatory Appeal — Money Decrees
In a money decree, execution does not by itself render an appeal nugatory, particularly where the respondent is a solvent and financially capable entity and their capacity to make restitution is not in doubt. A bare contention that the intended appeal will be rendered nugatory upon execution, without demonstrating how such prejudice would arise, cannot constitute a sufficient ground for the grant of a stay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Imminent Threat of Execution — Standard of Proof
An order of stay will issue only if there is actual or presently threatened execution. There must be a direct and immediate danger of execution of the decree. The evidence of imminent danger of execution is not strong enough in the absence of a warrant of execution or a notice to show cause why execution should not issue from the executing court. Where an applicant alleges a notice to show cause has been issued but fails to attach it or inform the court when it was given, the court cannot make a determination on the immediate threat of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Money Decrees and Restitution
Substantial loss is not confined to a particular monetary value but encompasses any loss of real and appreciable worth, as distinguished from trivial or nominal loss. The deprivation must be over and above the ordinary loss resulting from litigation. Execution of a money decree is ordinarily not stayed since satisfaction of a money decree does not amount to substantial loss or irreparable injury to the applicant where the respondent is not impecunious, as the remedy of restitution is available to the applicant in the event the appeal is allowed.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Balancing Equities
When granting stay of execution pending an appeal, the court must balance the respondent's right to protection against the possibility that the appellant may be unable to satisfy the decree, with the appellant's right to access the courts. The requirement and insistence on a practice that mandates security for the entire decretal amount is likely to stifle appeals. Courts have been keen to order security for costs rather than security for the full decretal amount.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (9)

  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (C.A. Misc. Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (S.C. Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Osman Kassim Ramathan v Century Bottling Company (Civil Application No. 34 of 2019)
  • Zubeda Muhamad & Anor v Laila Kaka Wallia & Anor (Civil Reference No. 7 of 2016)
  • Muhorro Town Council v Rutalihamu Jacob (Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2022)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and Others v. International Credit Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Junaco (T) Limited & 2 others v DFCU Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 27 of 2023)
  • Alice Wambui Nganga v. John Ngure Kahoro and another, ELC Case No. 482 of 2017 (at Thika); [2021] eKLR
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Dr. Ann Persis Nakate Lussejere (C.A. Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Great Lakes Coffee Company Ltd and Others v KCB Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 59 of 2026) [2026] UGCommC 194 (27 February 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.