Kampala Industries & Infrastructure Development Limited v Ceva International Ltd (Formerly Ami Africa (U) Ltd) (Miscellaneous Application No. 192 of 2025)
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 an application for stay of execution as premature. The applicant sought to stay enforcement of a USD 180,408 judgment pending appeal, but failed to provide evidence that the respondent had commenced or threatened execution proceedings. The court held that without proof of actual or imminent execution steps under section 38 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the application was hypothetical and could not be entertained. Courts will not order a stay where no application for execution has been filed or approved.
Outcome
Application for stay of execution dismissed as premature
Facts
The applicant was defendant in Civil Suit No. 01/2022, in which judgment was entered against it on 10 January 2025 ordering payment of USD 180,408 and UGX 989,052 plus interest and costs. The applicant filed a notice of appeal and then brought this application for stay of execution, arguing that enforcement would extinguish its operations and render the appeal nugatory. The applicant stated willingness to furnish security. The respondent opposed, stating it had not commenced any execution proceedings, the application was premature, and the applicant had not furnished security or demonstrated irreparable loss. Neither the respondent nor counsel appeared at the hearing, but written submissions were filed.
Issues
- Whether this application raises sufficient grounds for an order of stay of execution?
- Whether security for costs should be paid by the applicants?
- Whether the parties have remedies available to them?
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
Cases cited (5)
- Lawrence Musiitwa v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
- Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
- Legal Brains Trust v Attorney General of Uganda (East Africa Court of Justice Appeal No. 4 of 2012)
- Baguma Paul T/A Panache Associates v Eng. Karuma Kagyina (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 460 of 2020)
- Orient Bank Ltd v Zaabwe & others (Miscellaneous Application No. 19 of 2007)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.