Wakilii

M/S Mukono Bookshop Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd v Magdalene Lamwaka (Miscellaneous Application No. 845 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 57 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal to Court of Appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 the application for stay of execution. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate that substantial loss would result if the stay was not granted, as the applicant did not prove with particulars that the respondent would be unable to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded. The court further held that the application was made with inordinate delay, having been filed more than five years after the appeal was lodged in 2019, with no explanation for the delay.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant, M/S Mukono Bookshop Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd, was the judgment debtor in Civil Suit No. 326 of 2014. Following an adverse judgment, the applicant filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal in November 2019 (Civil Appeal No. 308 of 2019), which remained pending. In September 2025, the respondent, Magdalene Lamwaka, commenced execution proceedings (Execution No. 0096 of 2025) seeking to enforce the decree for UGX 778,152,775. On 1 October 2025, the respondent issued a notice to show cause why execution should not issue. On 3 October 2025, the applicant filed this application seeking a stay of execution pending determination of the appeal. The respondent opposed the application, contending that the applicant had abandoned the appeal until the certificate of taxation was issued in August 2025, and that the application was an afterthought to frustrate enforcement of the judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for a stay of execution pending appeal under Order 43 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the applicant demonstrated that substantial loss would result if the stay of execution was not granted.
  3. Whether the application for stay of execution was made without unreasonable delay.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Burden of Proof
An applicant seeking a stay of execution must prove with particulars and details that the respondent will be unable to refund the decretal sum if the stay is not granted and the appeal succeeds. The mere fact that there is an imminent threat of execution or that the amounts involved are substantial is not itself proof of substantial loss.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Qualitative Concept
Substantial loss does not represent any particular mathematical formula but is a qualitative concept. It refers to any loss, great or small, that is of real worth or value as distinguished from a loss without value or a loss that is merely nominal. In a money decree, substantial loss lies in the inability of the respondent to refund the decretal sum should the appeal succeed.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Unreasonable Delay
There is no bar to filing an application for a stay of execution even when there is no application for execution pending. However, an applicant who files an appeal and then waits more than five years to file a stay application, with no explanation for the delay, is guilty of inordinate delay which cannot be condoned.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (13)

  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & 3 Others v Attorney General & 4 Others (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkudiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd & Ors v International Credit Bank Ltd (in liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • John Baptist Kawanga v Namyalo Kevina & Ssemakula Laurence (HCMA No. 12 of 2017)
  • Imperial Royale Hotel Ltd & 2 Others v Ochan Daniel (Miscellaneous Application No. 111 of 2012)
  • Margaret Kato & Joel Kato v Nuulu Nalwoga (Civil Application No. 11 of 2011)
  • Orute Aloysius & 4 Ors v Alupo Esther (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 960 of 2023)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013) [2013] UGCA 2048
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and Ors v The Attorney General and Ors (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Tropical Commodities & 2 Ors v International Credit Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) (HCMA No. 379 of 2003)
  • Antoine Ndiaye v African Virtual University [2015] KEHC 6783
  • T.M.K v Jack Busingye & 2 Ors [1992-93] HCB 157

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.

M_S Mukono Bookshop Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd v Magdalene Lamwaka (Miscellaneous Application No. 845 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 57 (13 March 2026)
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.