Wakilii

Karungi Elizabeth v Kkingo Parents Transporters Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 55 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1250 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of High Court decree pending appeal to Court of Appeal
Decision
Execution of the decree in High Court Civil Suit No. 20 of 2022 stayed pending final disposal of the appeal to the Court of Appeal

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 the application for stay of execution pending appeal. The court found that the applicant satisfied all four requirements: she would suffer substantial loss (payment of UGX 552,000,000), the application was filed promptly without delay, the intended appeal raised pertinent issues worthy of appellate consideration, and security for costs was not required as the appeal was not frivolous and imposing security would impede access to justice.

Outcome

Execution of the decree in High Court Civil Suit No. 20 of 2022 stayed pending final disposal of the appeal to the Court of Appeal

Facts

The applicant was ordered by the High Court in Civil Suit No. 20 of 2022 to pay UGX 552,000,000 to the respondent for breach of contract relating to the purchase of buses. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 17 April 2025 and lodged a memorandum of appeal with the Court of Appeal on 19 May 2025. On 22 April 2025, she applied to stay execution of the decree pending appeal. The applicant contended she had already paid the full purchase price and would suffer double payment if execution proceeded. The respondent opposed, arguing the application was premature and that the applicant had deliberately refused to defend the original suit. The respondent had extracted and had the decree endorsed on 6 May 2025, commencing the execution process.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant is likely to suffer substantial loss if the stay of execution is not granted.
  2. Whether the application was presented without undue delay.
  3. Whether the intended appeal raises arguable grounds with a reasonable prospect of success.
  4. Whether security for the due performance of the decree should be required.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution allowed.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Test for Grant of Stay Pending Appeal
For an applicant to succeed in obtaining a stay of execution pending appeal, they must demonstrate that: (1) they are likely to suffer substantial loss if the stay is not granted; (2) the application was presented without undue delay; (3) their intended appeal raises arguable grounds with a reasonable prospect of success; and (4) they have provided security for the due performance of the decree or order, should it ultimately be upheld.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Meaning of Substantial Loss
Substantial loss is not tied to any fixed amount or measurable standard and cannot be determined by a mathematical formula. It denotes any loss, whether large or small, that carries real weight or value, as opposed to one that is merely nominal or without significance.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Assessment of Likelihood of Success
To satisfy the requirement of likelihood of success, an applicant need only demonstrate that the intended appeal raises a serious question worthy of consideration by the appellate court. At this stage, the trial court is not called upon to assess the merits of the appeal, for that would amount to sitting in review of its own decision.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Costs — Discretion of Court
The power to require payment of security for costs is discretionary and must be exercised with caution and only in appropriate circumstances. Where an intended appeal is not frivolous and raises substantial issues deserving consideration by the appellate court, it would not be in the interests of justice to impose security for costs, as doing so may impede the applicant's right of appeal.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (12)

  • Livingstone Nsumba Membe v Fibiano Mayoga [2009] 1 HCB 82
  • Francis M. Micah v Nuwa Walakira [1992-93] HCB 88
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd & Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Kaggwa v Kawalya-Kaggwa (Administration Cause No. 21 of 1972)
  • Kyazze v Busingye [1990] LLR 190
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v The Attorney General & Another (Constitutional Application No. 06 of 2013)
  • Gashumba v Nkudiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015) [2015] UGSC 7
  • Dr. Ahmed Mohhamad Kisule v Greenland Bank (In Liquidation) (SCCA No. 7 of 2010)
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Lusejjere (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 29 of 2003)
  • Wilson v Church [1879] 12 Ch D 454
  • UCB v Multi Constructors Ltd (SCCA No. 29 of 1994)
  • Paul Nyamarere & 3 Others v Dison Okumu & 6 Others (SC Civil Application No. 35 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Karungi Elizabeth v Kkingo Parents Transporters Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 55 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 1250 (4 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.