Wakilii

Legal Action for Persons With Disabilities Uganda (LAPD) v Kitanda Ronald Mulyanti [2025] UGCOMMC 559

High Court · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal out of time, validation of memorandum of appeal, and stay of execution arising from judgment in Civil Suit No. 96 of 2019
Decision
Leave to appeal granted and memorandum of appeal validated; stay of execution denied

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 leave to appeal out of time and validated the memorandum of appeal, finding that the applicant's delay was caused by former counsel's failure to inform them of the judgment and that the applicant acted diligently upon learning of it. The court denied the stay of execution because the applicant failed to provide security for due performance and did not demonstrate an imminent threat of execution.

Outcome

Leave to appeal granted and memorandum of appeal validated; stay of execution denied

Facts

The Applicant was the defendant in Civil Suit No. 96 of 2019 concerning breach of contract for consultancy services. Judgment was delivered on 8 November 2023 in favour of the Respondent, ordering the Applicant to pay UGX 19,500,000 and damages of UGX 1,500,000. The Applicant contends it was unaware of the judgment as it was not present in court and its former lawyers, M/s Kahara & Co. Advocates, failed to inform it despite repeated requests for updates. The Applicant became aware of the judgment on 28 June 2024 upon receiving a demand letter. It then instructed new counsel who filed a Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal on 26 August 2024. The Respondent commenced execution proceedings and argued that the Applicant was served with the decree on 14 June 2024 and had been indolent in prosecuting the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has shown sufficient cause to be granted leave to appeal out of time?
  2. Whether the Memorandum of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2024 should be validated?
  3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to a stay of execution?

Orders

  • Leave granted to the Applicant to file their appeal out of time.
  • The Memorandum of Appeal filed in Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2024 is validated and deemed duly filed.
  • The Applicant is directed to file and serve a complete record of appeal within thirty (30) days from the date of this ruling.
  • The prayer for stay of execution is denied.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal Out of Time — Sufficient Cause
Where an applicant's delay in filing an appeal is attributable to the negligence of former counsel who failed to inform the client of the judgment, and the applicant demonstrates vigilance by inquiring about the case and acts promptly upon learning of the judgment by instructing new counsel and filing the appeal, sufficient cause is established for granting leave to appeal out of time.
Administrative Law — Substantive Justice — Article 126(2)(e) Constitution — Technicalities
A misdescription of a deponent's name in a Notice of Motion is a curable irregularity that does not go to the root of the application where the correct affidavit is on file and served on the opposing party. Courts must administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities pursuant to Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Mandatory Requirements — Security for Due Performance
An applicant seeking a stay of execution pending appeal must satisfy all three conditions under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules: substantial loss may result unless stay is granted, the application is made without unreasonable delay, and security is given for due performance of the decree. Failure to provide security is fatal to the application.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Money Decrees — Substantial Loss
Execution of a money decree does not ordinarily constitute substantial loss justifying a stay of execution, since restitution can be ordered should the appeal succeed, provided the decree-holder is not impecunious and the applicant has not proved inability to recover the sum.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Imminent Threat of Execution — Evidence Required
A stay of execution will issue only if there is actual or presently threatened execution. There must be unequivocal evidence showing that unconditional steps conveying gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution have been taken, such as extracting the decree, having a bill of costs taxed, applying for a warrant of execution, or issuing a notice to show cause.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (8)

  • Kassam v Bank of Baroda (U) Ltd [2002] 1 EA 76
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] 2 EA 22
  • Mulindwa George William v Kisubika Joseph (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa v Itobu Margret (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0160 of 2022)
  • Ntege Mayambala v Christopher Mwanje (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 72 of 1991)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & others v Attorney General & others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Formula Feeds Ltd v KCB Bank Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Legal Action for Persons With Disabilities Uganda (LAPD) v Kitanda Ronald Mulyanti 2025 UGCommC 559 (2 September 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.