Wakilii

Karago Construction & Engineering Limited v Emmaus Foundation Investment (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Application 122 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 207 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal from judicial review decision
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 pending appeal from a judicial review decision. The court held that while the applicant satisfied some procedural requirements, it failed to demonstrate substantial loss, raise serious questions of law or fact in the appeal, or show that the appeal would be rendered nugatory. The grounds of appeal improperly focused on determination of private rights rather than the process of administrative decision-making, which is the proper scope of judicial review.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The applicant, Karago Construction & Engineering Limited, applied for stay of execution of orders in Miscellaneous Cause No. 202 of 2023 pending appeal to the Court of Appeal. The underlying judicial review matter concerned a decision by Uganda Land Commission to cancel the respondent's lease and allocate the land to the applicant. The High Court had quashed that decision in favour of the respondent, Emmaus Foundation Investment (U) Limited, which held a 99-year leasehold over the suit land. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 5 February 2025 and this application on 10 February 2025. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the appeal was incompetent, filed out of time, and that the applicant had trespassed on the land despite an injunction. The respondent also contended that no execution had commenced and that the judicial review orders were self-executing.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant is entitled to an order for stay of execution pending appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements under Order 43 Rule 4
For a stay of execution to be granted under Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the applicant must satisfy four conditions: (i) there is a substantive appeal lodged in court; (ii) substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the stay is granted; (iii) the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (iv) the applicant has given security for due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him or her.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Additional Considerations
Beyond the statutory requirements, a court considering a stay of execution must also consider: (a) whether there is a serious or imminent threat of execution and whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the stay is not granted; (b) whether the appeal is not frivolous and has a likelihood of success; and (c) whether refusal to grant the stay would inflict more hardship than it would avoid.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Demonstration of Substantial Loss
An applicant for stay of execution must demonstrate what specific hardship or substantial loss will be suffered if the stay is not granted. It is insufficient to merely state in general terms that substantial loss, inconvenience, or irreparable damage will result without particularising the nature of the prejudice.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Serious Questions of Law or Fact
For a stay of execution to be granted, the appeal must raise serious questions of law or fact for determination by the appellate court. The test is not whether the appeal will be definitively successful, but whether it raises substantial legal or factual issues worthy of appellate consideration.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Scope of Appeal
Judicial review is concerned with the process through which an administrative decision is arrived at, not with the decision itself or its correctness. An appeal from a judicial review decision that raises grounds revolving around the determination of private rights rather than the process of decision-making departs from the proper scope of judicial review and fails to raise serious questions of law.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Not Automatic upon Filing Appeal
Not all orders or decrees appealed from must be stayed pending appeal. The assumption that once a party has filed an appeal a stay of execution must follow as a matter of course has no legal basis. It is incumbent upon the applicant in every application for stay of execution to satisfy the court that grounds exist for the grant of a stay.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (8)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Gapco Uganda Ltd v. Kaweesa & Anor
  • John Baptist Kawanya v Namyalo Kevina & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2017)
  • Mary Orech v Kabogoza Mutwalib (Civil Application No. 200 of 2020)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd v International Credit Bank (2004)
  • Lawrence Musitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1990)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Karago Construction & Engineering Limited v Emmaus Foundation Investment (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Application 122 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 207 (24 November 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.