Wakilii

Kituzi Farm Co. Ltd v Bestpack UG Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1070 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 125 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of judgment pending appeal to the Court of Appeal
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 where the applicant failed to prove the existence of a competent notice of appeal, did not provide a memorandum of appeal to demonstrate arguable grounds, and failed to demonstrate substantial loss or undertake to provide security for due performance of the decree. The court held that the basic foundation for stay of execution under Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules is the existence of a competent notice of appeal, which was absent as the applicant's notice was filed out of time and pending validation by the Court of Appeal.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

Bestpack UG Ltd obtained judgment against Kituzi Farm Co. Ltd in Civil Suit No. 826 of 2022 for recovery of UGX 335,411,200 being the outstanding balance for packaging materials supplied on credit. Judgment was delivered on 14 November 2024 awarding the respondent the contractual sum, interest at 18% per annum, general damages of UGX 20,000,000 and costs. The applicant only learned of the judgment on 27 February 2025 when served with a demand notice. The applicant filed a notice of appeal out of time on 5 March 2025 and filed an application in the Court of Appeal (Civil Application No. 0154 of 2025) to validate the notice of appeal. On 26 May 2025, the applicant filed this application seeking unconditional stay of execution pending determination of the appeal and the validation application.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises sufficient grounds for an order of stay of execution
  2. Whether the applicant should deposit security for the due performance of the decree

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Competent Notice of Appeal as Prerequisite
The existence of a competent notice of appeal is the basic foundation upon which other considerations for a grant of an order of stay of execution can be considered under Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Notice of Appeal Pending Validation
Where a notice of appeal has been filed out of time and is pending validation by the Court of Appeal, there is no competent notice of appeal for purposes of an application for stay of execution, and in the absence of validation of the notice of appeal, there is no appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success on Appeal
To satisfy the requirement that an appeal has a likelihood of success, the court must be satisfied that the prospects of the appeal succeeding are not remote but that there is a realistic chance of succeeding, and more is required to be established than that there is a mere possibility of success. The memorandum of appeal is necessary for the court to assess whether the applicant has an arguable case on appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
Substantial loss does not represent any particular amount or size and cannot be quantified by any particular mathematical formulae. It refers to any loss, great or small, that is of real worth or value as distinguished from loss without a value or that which is merely nominal. Payment of a money decree does not amount to loss per se where it is money actually owed to the decree-holder.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance
In granting an order of stay of execution pending an appeal, the court must balance the need to uphold the respondent's right to be protected from the risk that the appellant may not be able to satisfy the decree, with the appellant's right to access the courts. Security for due performance of a decree is intended to ensure that courts do not assist litigants to delay execution through filing vexatious and frivolous appeals.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (8)

  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Heywood Group Ltd and Another v Kaffika Animal Feeds Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 972 of 2025)
  • Busia Produce Dealers Multipurpose Cooperative Society v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 185 of 2021)
  • Formula Feeds Limited and 3 Others v KCB Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd and Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (2004) 2 EA 331
  • Kabarema Adonia v Natukunda Marion (Miscellaneous Application No. 0264 of 2021)
  • John Baptist Kawanga v Namyalo Kevina and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2017)

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.

Kituzi Farm Co. Ltd v Bestpack UG Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1070 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 125 (12 June 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.