Wakilii

Kasese Hospital Limited and Another v Microfinance Support Centre and Another [2025] UGHC 1582

High Court · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of judgment in Civil Suit No. 684 of 2019 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

The High Court dismissed an application for stay of execution of a judgment pending appeal. The court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate an imminent threat of execution, substantial loss that could not be remedied by damages, or proper security for costs. The court found that the originating summons seeking vacant possession was distinct from execution of the decree and did not constitute an imminent threat. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The applicants instituted Civil Suit No. 684 of 2019 against the respondents seeking a declaration that a Murabaha facility agreement was governed by sharia law and that the sale of security property was invalid. Judgment was entered in favour of the respondents and the suit was dismissed with costs on 19 August 2024. The decree was issued on 24 October 2024. The first respondent subsequently instituted Originating Summons No. 0001 of 2024 in the High Court at Kasese seeking vacant possession of the mortgaged property, which had been sold to the second respondent. The applicants filed a notice of appeal and lodged Civil Appeal No. 0951 of 2024 in the Court of Appeal. On 10 March 2025, the applicants filed this application seeking a stay of execution of the decree pending the appeal, arguing that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if execution proceeded.

Issues

  1. Whether this is a proper case for the grant of a stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
  2. Whether there is a notice of appeal.
  3. Whether the application has been made without unreasonable delay.
  4. Whether there is a serious or imminent threat of execution of the decree if the application is not granted.
  5. Whether substantial loss may result to the Applicant unless the stay of execution is granted.
  6. Whether security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him or her.
  7. Whether the appeal has a high likelihood of success.
  8. Whether refusal to grant the stay would inflict greater hardship than it would avoid.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Applicable Provisions — Order 22 Rule 23 vs Order 22 Rule 26
Order 22 Rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies only where a decree has been transferred from the court which passed it to another court for execution. Where execution is sought in the same court that issued the decree, Order 22 Rule 23 is misplaced. Order 22 Rule 26 applies where a suit is pending between the same parties and allows the court to stay execution on such terms as to security or otherwise as it thinks fit.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Imminent Threat of Execution
An order of stay of execution will issue only if there is actual or presently threatened execution. There must be a direct and immediate danger of execution of the decree. Unequivocal evidence showing unconditional steps that convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution must be demonstrated, including extracting the decree, presenting and having a bill of costs taxed and paid, issuance of a warrant of execution, and issuing a notice to show cause why execution should not issue.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Meaning and Proof Required
The words 'substantial loss' in the context of stay of execution must mean something in addition to and different from the ordinary loss to which every judgment debtor is necessarily subjected when he loses his case and is deprived of his property. The kind of loss must be specified, details must be given, and the conscience of the court must be satisfied that such loss will really ensue. Execution of a money decree is ordinarily not stayed since satisfaction of a money decree does not amount to substantial loss or irreparable injury where the respondent is not impecunious, as the remedy of restitution is available in the event the appeal is allowed.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Requirements
Security for due performance of a decree must be certain and deposited in court by the applicants. Courts have been reluctant to order security for the entire decretal amount as this is likely to stifle appeals. Courts have instead been keen to order security for costs. The payment of security for costs is intended to operate as a shield against the filing of frivolous and vexatious appeals which may never succeed yet have an effect in escalating trial costs.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (11)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa v Itobu Margret (HCMA No. 0160 of 2022)
  • Hon Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Formula Feeds Ltd v KCB Bank Ltd (HCMA No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Baguma Paul T/A Panache Associates v Eng. Karuma Kagyina (HCMA No. 460 of 2020)
  • Orient Bank Ltd v Zaabwe and Others (HCMA No. 191 of 2006)
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Coqecot Cotton Co. SA (1995-1998) 1 EA 312
  • Bansidhav v Pribku Dayal, AIR 41 1954
  • Kisaalu Joseph and 10 Others v Nakintu May and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 105 of 2020)
  • Shem Mpanga Mukasa and Another v Kizza Clessy Barya (Miscellaneous Application No. 479 of 2021)
  • Wandera Michael v Baguma Samalie (Miscellaneous Application No. 36 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasese Hospital Limited and Another v Microfinance Support Centre and Another 2025 UGHC 1582 (29 August 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.