Wakilii

Kabagambe Nicholas v Mutabazi Francis (Miscellaneous Application No. 2280 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 300 · 2025 Application Granted 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
Decision
Stay of execution granted pending appeal; respondent's affidavit in reply struck out for non-compliance with procedural rules

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 granted a stay of execution pending appeal where the applicant satisfied all five conditions: filing a notice of appeal without unreasonable delay, demonstrating imminent threat of execution, showing substantial loss if stay not granted, and offering security for due performance of the decree. The court also struck out the respondent's affidavit in reply filed 39 days after service, in breach of the mandatory 15-day rule under Order 12 Rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted pending appeal; respondent's affidavit in reply struck out for non-compliance with procedural rules

Facts

The respondent obtained default judgment against the applicant in Civil Suit No. 0473 of 2022 for UGX 150,000,000 plus costs after the applicant's application for leave to defend was dismissed. The respondent was subsequently awarded UGX 14,546,700 as taxed costs and filed execution proceedings. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 24 October 2023 and this application for stay of execution on 23 October 2024. The respondent filed an affidavit in reply 39 days after service of the application, exceeding the mandatory 15-day period under Order 12 Rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant offered security in the form of a certificate of title valued at over UGX 125,000,000.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has raised sufficient grounds for orders of stay of execution?
  2. What remedies are available?

Orders

  • Preliminary objection allowed.
  • Respondent's affidavit in reply struck out.
  • Application allowed.
  • Execution of the Decree and Orders against the Applicant in High Court (Commercial Division) Civil Suit No. 0473 of 2022 stayed pending determination of the Applicant's appeal in the Court of Appeal.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
For a court to grant a stay of execution pending appeal, the applicant must satisfy five conditions: (1) a notice of appeal has been filed; (2) the application has been made without unreasonable delay; (3) there is serious or imminent threat of execution if the application is not granted; (4) substantial loss may occur to the applicant unless stay is granted; and (5) the applicant has given security for due performance of the decree as may ultimately be binding upon him.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Time Limits for Filing Reply
Order 12 Rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules requires that a reply to an interlocutory application be filed within fifteen days from the date of service of the application. This requirement is mandatory, and an affidavit in reply filed outside this period without leave of court must be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Constitutional Interpretation — Article 126(2)(e) and Procedural Rules
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, which provides that substantive justice shall be administered without undue regard to technicalities, does not abolish procedural rules. Rules of procedure are handmaids to justice and must be applied with due regard to the circumstances of each case, but compliance with mandatory procedural requirements cannot be excused on grounds of avoiding technicalities alone.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
Substantial loss for purposes of stay of execution does not represent any particular amount or size and cannot be quantified by any mathematical formula. It is a qualitative concept referring to any loss, great or small, that is of real worth or value, as distinguished from a loss without value or a loss that is merely nominal.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (11)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kabagambe Nicholas v Mutabazi Francis (Miscellaneous Application No. 2280 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 300 (30 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.